Talk:Bernard Montgomery/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Name

Is there any chance to move this article to some shorter name? I don't think we need to put the whole titulature in the article name, Bernard Law Montgomery would be just as good and it would definitely not stick out in all lists and categories (check Category:Recipients of Virtuti Militari for reference). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:29, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Many of them are like that eg: Archibald Percival Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell and William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. Including the ones who deserve it like: John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and ones who don't like Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig. Trouble is that one can not just put Duke of Wellington because there is more than one and althought you and I may not care, see Talk:Duke of Wellington for thoses who do! Philip Baird Shearer 00:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The title follows the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). If you don't like the convention, you need to get consensus to change it, perhaps by presenting your argument at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Gdr 03:09, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't follow the convention. The title was awarded after the war, people recognize him exclusively by his name. It is rare for anyone to even know what his title was other than general. This fits the explicit exclusion for individuals whose title was awarded after their service, and who where known exclusively by their untitled name. Montgomery fits both cases, though either would be sufficient.

" EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington")."

Like the cases of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, Betrand Russell etc who were known exclusively by their untitled names, the names of the articles do not carry the titles. I personally have no strong feelings about Montgomery one way or the other. I like Bertrand Russell, Elton John and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. But the titles of all those articles do not carry the excess baggage.

Unless there is some substantive reason to the contrary, this article's name should be brought into conformance with wikipedia naming standards Mak 05:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More on 8th Army

Can I suggest that something be added to cover his takeover of the 8th Army from Auchinleck and his relationship with his superior in North Africa, General Alexander? Also I thought that the article was anti-Monty, which in reference to the other comment that it was pro-Monty probably means you've got it right. Is it also possible to include a reference from Montgomery to this page. I'm a Wikipedia newbie so sorry if I'm retreading old ground. Leithp 18:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We definitely need more about North Africa, that was where he became Churchill's favourite. It is also a very controversial part of his claim to fame. Dabbler 02:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irish Service

I'm not sure that there's much evidence of anti-Irish "bigotry" on the part of Montgomery other than the existing ethos on the part of then Officers of the British Empire.

There were atrocities commited by both sides during his tenure but his biographer Nigel Hawthorne also points out that Montgomery was a realist about there eventually being an independent Irish Republic.

Montgomery himself was of Protestant Irish descent and his family gave up considerable property to the new Republic.

I'm probabably leaving myself open to flaming here, but that whole paragraph seems dubious. It seems reasonable to include a reference to Montgomery's service in Ireland, but the references to "Crown forces" and "burning of homes and businesses, torture, and murder" seems to be POV. These things may have happened, I don't know enough to comment, but given that they don't appear on the Anglo-Irish War page why should they appear here? Leithp 10:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Having loooked into this, I've found that the section on his Irish service was added by 159.134.233.73, whose only other contributions were to the RUC and the British Army where he made similar edits alleging brutality. This loooks a bit too much like an agenda. I've taken a large part of this paragraph out to make it NPOV. It might still be worthwhile covering his time in Ireland in greater detail if someone has a good source of information on this. Leithp 11:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

After this paragraph reappeared I left a message on Lapsed Pacifist's talk page on 15th June asking for references and sources for this, as I've never read anything on Mongomery's involvement in this anywhere else. That's not to say I'm saying it didn't happen, just that I view this with a bit of suspicion. I haven't had a response, although the user has been active elsewhere, so I'm going to remove those parts of the paragraph that appear to be POV. Leithp 09:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery was responsible for the British army in Cork, where they (a force that were there ostensibly to restore law and order) killed unarmed prisoners and other suspects, and looted and destroyed towns. The British government was aware of this and privately encouraged it to cow a population they believed were supporting and hiding the IRA. These activities were not confined to Cork, but they began there and were most prevalent there. He was also active in promoting black propaganda. All this in what was nominally his own country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Just because Montgomery's biographers have chosen to ignore or whitewash this episode in his career, is no reason for you to follow suit.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Referring to Wikipedia articles which you yourself have edited and in one case provided the entire relevant content does not strike me as being very honest reference material. Can you point to any other references for your assertions? Sorry forgot to sign. Dabbler 15:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much of the article on the Essex Regiment was an education for me. I have Googled terms I thought relevant to find the references you sought, but was unable to come up with a non-Irish source, which I would have liked. I believe this is because the Anglo-Irish conflict is not of much concern to many outside Ireland. The same applies to books on the subject, many of which are written by ex-IRA men.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I looked into Montgomery's Irish service following Lapsed Pacifist's comments. I have edited the page accordingly and left this message on his talk page:

I assumed good faith on your part and looked into Montgomery's record in Ireland at the central reference library here in Edinburgh in order to got some more details. He wasn't a "commanding officer" he was a staff officer, something quite different. Also his behaviour seems to have been generally decent if ruthless towards the IRA. Tom Barry, an IRA leader, descibed him as efficient enemy who behaved "with great correctness". I think you're mixing him up with Arthur Percival, whose tactics were quite different from Montgomery's. In fact Montgomery seems to have been in favor of British troops evacuating the area. I struggled to find Irish History books that referred to him, but for the record my two main references are:

Peter Hart- The IRA & Its Enemies- Violence and Community in Cork 1916-1923

Nigel Hamilton- The Full Monty- Montgomery of Alamein 1887-1942

I'll edit the article accordingly.

Leithp 15:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Leithp 15:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would advise you to read some online reviews of Hart's book before referencing it. If you cannot find any, get back to me. A book called "The Green Flag" by Robert Kee is the only study of Irish nationalism I know of that was not written by an Irish author. While I have not read it myself (I have read his account of life as a POW, and enjoyed it), it has been recommended to me and I presume it would cover the Anglo-Irish War and give a different viewpoint than that offered by most Irish historians. I have read Barry's book (a good while ago, admittedly) and seem to remember Montgomery being portrayed in less than the flattering light you suggest. However, I will reread it as my memory may be faulty. I'm confused at your reference to seeking "revenge". Was his cousin killed in Donegal? If he was I can't see how Montgomery would have been in a position to avenge him. I made some minor edits, I don't believe they're contentious.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peter Hart was one of the authors on the list of references that you provided, what's the problem? Hart is a Canadian, and would have approached the subject from an outsider's viewpoint. He worked in both Dublin and Belfast prior to publishing the book, in Dublin he worked under one of your other references David Fitzpatrick. I read some of the online reviews and they seemed to generally be very positive. The only controversial aspect relates to the Kilmichael ambush, which has nothing to do with what I referenced. The reference to "revenge", which I probably didn't phrase very well, is to whether Montgomery might have felt a sense to avenge the death of his cousin, who was one of the eleven intelligence officers killed in Dublin prior to Bloody Sunday. He might have felt that (although that would be speculation), but it doesn't seem to have affected his actions. Leithp 08:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

See [1]. Also Google the names of Peter Hart and Meda Ryan, who published a similar book around the same time. There was a kind of debate, a lot of it online or in newspapers, between the two for a while. Your reference to Donegal seems to imply that there were parts of Ireland that were peaceful at the time.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but no-one seems to be accusing Peter Hart of bias. Also Montgomery never had direct command of troops in Ireland, he was a Staff officer, so it seems excessive to blame him for the actions of the "black & tans". Particularly since he only arrived in 1921. As far as the reference to Donegal goes, I agree that the sentence is a bit clunky but I wanted to get over to an uninformed reader (who might not be familiar with Ireland and Donegal) that Montgomery's family home was embroiled in the conflict. How would you suggest it should be phrased? Leithp 09:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Drawing the wrong conclusions from the statistics, relying on newspaper and magazine "accounts of the time" that came straight from Dublin Castle, definitely. Bias, well, that's a subjective judgement. I don't blame him for the actions of the Black and Tans, but I am interested in exactly what his responsibilities were. You should include his disenchantment with government policy in the article.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As yoou suggested I have added a sentence on Montgomery's view on the withdrawal of the army. This is taken from a letter to Percival quoted in Nigel Hamilton's biography. Essentially the letter says that to win the conflict would have required a degree of brutality that would be unacceptable in a democracy and that he therefore agreed with Lloyd George's position and the formation of the Irish Free State. This was not, I imagine, Percival's view.

The role of a staff officer (which doesn't even seem to have an entry in Wikipedia) is essentially an administrative one. A typical example of his role would be the briefing memo he wrote for arriving troops, describing the situation in Ireland (I took the "beyond reproach" quote from it). I can't find a really clear description of the role on the internet, but this one is okay (if a bit vague) [2].

I've got to say this is all quite interesting, this isn't an area of history that I've ever read much on, so this is all quite new to me. I may go and edit the Lloyd George article as I notice that it doesn't even mention the formation of the Free State. I tell a lie, it does seem to mention it, albeit very briefly.

The paragraph as it stands seems quite comprehensive, but are you happy with the content and wording? I'd like to wrap this up and move on to something else if we can agree. Leithp 18:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy. If I learn more I'll let you know.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing untoward seems to have happened to the Montgomery property in Donegal. Bernard's parents, Henry died there in 1932, Maud in 1949, when the property was sold to become a hotel. MAG1 22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Law Montgomery

Montgomery believed in pre-planning battles, and then letting the plan run its course. This only works when you have overwhelming force. In my opinion, his record cannot be defended rationally.

The US General James Gavin, commander of the 82nd Airborne, worked closely with Montgomery and had lots of good to say about him. I think Gavin knew a thing or two about being a General. DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He took over from a general who was fired for not attacking, in North Africa, then set back that general's planned date of attack. In his memoirs, Churchill says that it was impossible to replace him right after appointing him, so they had to stick with him.

He was equally slow in Sicily, letting the German forces escape through the port he was supposed to take, and again in Normandy, falling far behind his stated plans and spending weeks instead of hours taking Caen. At the battle of the bulge, Patton was forced to take on the Germans alone, and was done while Montgomery was getting ready.

The US 1st Army was doing the majority of the fighting in the bulge, and was not under Patton. DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I simply can't imagine what anyone who understands generalship could say about Monty. The best couter-example to his way of fighting was in Market Garden, where there was nobody really directing the battle because it was supposed to unfold according to plan.

I should think that the sweet-natured article now posted might have at least a paragraph summarizing these reservations about his record.

Asking why Montgomery too so long to take Caen has the same answer as to why it took Patton so long to take Metz - the Germans had dug in with artilliery and armor, and were difficult to dislodge. Somehow the British also managed to rack up more casualties than the americans in taking Sicily - perhaps they were facing heavier opposition in the eastern side of the island, the evacuation route the germans and italians were trying to protect? 203.173.27.53 08:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A better critique of Montgomery's action in Sicily is how he changed the plan. Under the original plan US 7th Army was to land near Palermo and drive east towards Messina. Monty forcefully suggested that the 7th instead land near Gela in the south, thus placing the two Allied armies side-by-side. Alexander should be faulted for allowing the change to take place. Under the original plan it is possible the two armies might have converged on Messina faster, trapping more German forces. DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

At one point before the Bulge, Eisenhower had removed quite a few divisions from Patton and some other American Corps to pad Montgomery in his ever upcoming northern thrust which turned out to be the failed Market Garden. Patton was reduced to 2-3 divisions

That's quite an exaggeration. DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

and was still moving a hundred miles a week through France until he basically outran his supply lines. Meanwhile, Montgomery was sitting on 14 divisions doing NOTHING and said he couldn't formulate an attack until February. The Germans crushed through the weak line at the Ardennes in December. Monty couldn't mobilize ANYTHING from that many troops to swing to Bastogne and close the Bulge? They were sitting there doing NOTHING! Any general will tell you that a stationary army is a dead army. Fixed positions do nothing but let the enemy know where you are at and they will go around you. That is what happened with the Ardennes and Monty wasn't capable of thinking on his feet fast enough to do anything about it.

Montgomery was not in command of the US forces holding the area that became the Battle of the Bulge. It was largely the US VIII Corps, First Army, 12th Army Group. If the deployment was faulty blame Hodges or Bradley. I am not arguing the deployment was faulty, by the way, but, good or bad, it had nothing to do with Montgomery.DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All of this just further reinforces the fact that Monty was too calculated and needed too much preperation to accomplish his goals of micromanaging the battles.

Fascinating. But this isn't a forum to discuss the merits or otherwise of Montgomery and Patton, this is for discussing the article. If you have anything to say that isn't in the article, why not add it? You can also sign and date your comments on the talk page using four tildes ~~~~ . Leithp June 28, 2005 20:37 (UTC)

' until he basically outran his supply lines...Any general will tell you that a stationary army is a dead army.' Actually, any General will tell you an army without supplies is a dead army. As for the 'needed too much preperation to accomplish his goals of micromanaging the battles'. How about D-Day? This was essentially Montgomery's plan, and it was precisely because of his insistence for detail and proper supply that it succeeded at all. But of course, most 'Patton was great, Montgomery was slow' people actually have no idea that it was Montgomery who was the major planning force behind Operation Overlord. Furthermore, Montgomery had criticised the defense of the Ardennes Forest before 'The Battle of the Bulge' for being too thin.

In my opinion, his record cannot be defended rationally. He took over from a general who was fired for not attacking, in North Africa, then set back that general's planned date of attack. In his memoirs, Churchill says that it was impossible to replace him right after appointing him, so they had to stick with him.

The person who 'fired' the General for not attacking was Churchill - Churchill had recently halved the available forces in North Africa by sending 50% of them on an ill-fated attempt to support Greece - which was a failure. He then blamed the Generals for the lack of success in the desert and fired a number of them in quick succession. (at least a third of all British tank losses were due to simple mechanical breakdowns, often because of such simple things as lack of air filters which had not yet arrived - the need for which Churchill seemed incapable of understanding - or the absence of spare parts) If one reads books about the Desert War written by people who were there you find that the things they found most depressing before the arrival of Montgomery was the poor Staff Work, and the abysmal state of the supply situation, ie. logistics. (one A9 Cruiser Squadron had a full inventory of spares - for the A10 Cruiser). Once Montgomery took over he shook things up and the troops started getting what they needed, but this still took time and the reason Montgomery set back that general's planned date of attack was because his forces were not yet ready to do what they were being requested to do and he would not be cowed by Churchill into starting an attack which he was sure would fail - which is what the previous Generals had in fact done.

Churchill liked to think of himself as a military genius and strategist, but he wasn't - the words Gallipoli and Singapore come to mind as examples of his 'genius' (along with the sending of the Prince of Wales & Repulse to impress the Japanese), and when you read the memoirs of various high-ranking Cabinet members, Army, Royal Navy and RAF officers, you realise just how much of their time was wasted in trying to dissuade him from reckless and ultimately pointless enterprises. Ian Dunster 16:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Churchill's little Greek Campaign was over well before Gazala. It was the Auk's incompetence (Ooh, looky, we can stop the Germans by putting nasty fortifications to block their way in the North. Who cares about the open desert to the south?) that forced the 8th Army back to Alamein.

I love the way a bunch of encyclopedia editors who have never fought a battle in their lives sit around treating some of the most successful military commanders in the world as if they were idiots and slinging words like 'incompetence' around. Get real. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The sending of British reinforcements to Greece was late 1940, and stymied Wavell's "Battleaxe" offensive. The botch of Gazala is generally taken to have been the fault of Ritchie, who is widely thought to have been overpromoted commanding the Eighth Army, but who after demotion later commanded a corps in Europe 1944-5, perfectly adequately as far as I know. It would probably be fairer to the Auk to say that he was a poor picker of men (Alan Cunningham, Ritchie) but actually did a decent job when he had to take personal command of Eighth Army during Crusader and Gazala. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.192.0.10 (talk • contribs).

Why is there no mention of the Falaise Pocket and the territorial aspect of that battle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oddnews (talk • contribs).

a humourous story

monty detested drinking and smoking and wouldnt allow anyone do either near him he was having a conference at his HQ churchill eisenhower and all the top allied commanders at the time the great majority of people smoked but monty stated not in my HQ then the guests of honour arrived the king and queen the king was a heavy smoker and lit up since he was the king and the 1 person monty couldnt forbid from doing anything as soon as the king lit up churchill and the others lit their cigarettes and cigars and monty was forced to give the speech in a plume of tobacco smoke Bouse23 12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The custom at British dinner parties until very recently was that smoking was not allowed until the monarch's health had been drunk, often late in the evening. If the King was there in person, I guess he took priority.

Intelligence in Monty's WWII

It is not true that "Monty was one of the few Allied commanders with access to Ultra information'. During Torch and the invasion of Crete, Ultra information was available to local commanders (Freyburg in Crete and Eisenhower in Torch) and was unfortunately discounted. In addition, Monty is claimed to have been indiscreet on occasion regarding the information he got from Ultra (eg, before El Alemain he is said to have publicly claimed to 'know what the Jerries had for breakfast') thus risking the secret that Enigma had been broken. Furthermore, his entire North African campaign was informed throughout about Rommel's logistics situation and to an extent his tactical planning via Ultra.

This article reflects none of this, and is misleading in the mention made of Ultra and its effect in Monty's campaigns. Someone who is informed about Monty should make revisions to reflect at least some of this information. ww 20:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ultra information was available to local commanders (Freyburg in Crete and Eisenhower in Torch) and was unfortunately discounted

The local commanders were told the ghist of the Ultra information but they were not told of it's source or reliability, therefore they were somewhat suspicous of the information and regarded it as just another form of intelligence no better (or more reliable) than any other. Montgomery was fully 'let in' on the Ultra secret and Bletchley Park before El Alamein, and knew it was an unimpeachable source. He was therefore in a position to know rather than guess. The only US General to be fully briefed on Ultra was Eisenhower (when he became Supreme Allied Commander before D-Day - Ramsay and Leigh-Mallory already knew), neither Bradley nor Patton had any idea about it, and not informing them was a US decision. Montgomery's actions (and criticism of them) need therefore to be judged in this light. Ian Dunster 12:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery and the film

A line on, or a link to the film 'I was Monty's Double'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.85 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 October 2005

Operation: Market Garden

How did Montgomery felt about Operation: Market Garden when it failed?

He never admitted it as such. He claimed it was "90%" successful. He did, however admit to some errors, a most unusual thing for him, especially given that he was still angling for overall command of a single thrust into Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.250.64 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Style issue discussion

There is a discussion going on here whether or not the first sentence of a biographical article should contain the full name of the individual and include any post nominal initials (eg. VC, KCB, OBE) or whether these should be relegated to later in the article. I have tried to point out that this is standard style and part of their full titles but there are “readability” concerns. This arose because of the Richard O’Connor featured article and one possible solution, a biobox, is now in place on that page. Please make your opinions known.Dabbler 12:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Favours in the beetroot fields

Can anyone find any quote for this that isn't linked to the band British Sea Power? Is it something they made up for their song and attributed to Montgomery? Dabbler 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, as I though it looked like crap. I may be wrong and it might be legitimate, though. Leithp 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Could this come from Monty's address/order to the troops of the 3rd Division in France, of which he was almost sacked and have to apologise it. This was mentioned in Desert Generals by Correlli Barnett, but without any specific details. --Ekeb 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. He was criticised because his order was pragmatic (it concentrated on preventing soldiers getting VD rather than having sex), not weird. MAG1 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I take the above comment back: there might be some truth in it. The full order is in Brian Montgomery's book, if anyone has it. MAG1 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I have expanded the article. It became a bit too long so I have been bold and done away with most descriptions of battles or internal American military politics as they can be found on other pages, and concentrated on details about the man himself. The plan of the article is a narrative followed by a section for controversy (though some of it seems a bit handbags at dawn to me). According to ODNB, Montgomery presented a 90 day plan for the Normandy battle before the invasion that mirrored what happened. If you have a verifiable source that says he said something different, then please restore the controversy. Similarly, the bit about the Scheldt was vague (not mentioned in the good article on the subject) and looked like armchair generalship; however, I could, of course, be wrong. The article is now 30K long, so it won't take a lot of additions. MAG1 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Much as I applaud the changes (an improved flow), I have some quibbles. 1) The politicking between the generals still needs more space: Monty nearly lost his job at one point and it also shines a light on the man's character. I suggest there should at least be links to those articles that you mention that add substance to this aspect. 2) 21st Army Group's failure to open up the Scheldt immediately Antwerp was captured is referred to widely, as is the escape across the Scheldt of the German 15th Army. This is legitimate criticism of Monty's performance. OK, I'm guilty of "armchair generalship" (thank God not the real thing), but Ike was not pleased at the time and the supply situation was a huge factor for the Allies. The Battle of the Scheldt article, good as it is about the course of that battle, could give the impression that German troops were dug in when Antwerp was taken, which is not what I've read elsewhere. Folks at 137 23:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There's something seriously wrong with this article as it currently cuts off at later life in both internet explorer and firefox. Arniep 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, unclosed reference. Still not quite right, but too late to deal with now; however, the tail of the article now can be seen. This probably deals with your first point, Folks at 137. As to your second, fine, but specifically what did Montgomery do/ not do? MAG1 00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 1st point covered (but maybe there's sufficient for a separate article!)! 2nd point: I think there was sin of omission. Monty was known for his appreciation of clear orders and "grip", ie, ensuring that things were done as ordered. It seems fair, therefore, to apply this criterion to him. The need to clear the Scheldt promptly and the opportunity to do it relatively cheaply was missed by someone - either Monty overlooked it himself or he did not ensure that the Cdn Army were on the ball. A point of "grip" must be to eliminate errors of omission. Have a look at Max Hastings' Armageddon, chapter 1; wherein there is a description of Anglo-Canadian inaction after Antwerp was taken. Belgian Resistance warned of the importance of nearby bridges, they were ignored and the bridges were blown. The local British divisional commander had not been informed of the importance of these bridges nor of the probable direction of advance. Specifically, I would argue that Monty should have been aware of Antwerp's importance and ensured that Crerar and his subordinates acted (and were capable of doing so), especially since there were doubts about Crerar's effectiveness. A quote from Monty: "a bad mistake - I underestmated the difficulty of opening up the approaches to Antwerp ... I reckoned that the Canadian Army could do it while we were going for the Ruhr. I was wrong."

On a different point: given the arguments over Monty's "delays" during the Battle of the Bulge, here's a comment by Manteuffel: "The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough." Praise from an adversary. Folks at 137 10:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the recent edit improves the overall flow of the article and restores some needed balance. However, the Normandy section is simply not in accord with the facts; the older version was better IMO. DMorpheus 15:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks at 137, I've had a go at incorporating your material. It'd be great if you would reference your quotations.

DMorpheus, fine- but what are the facts. For me, the key thing is what Montgomery said at the presentations at St Pauls School? Hamilton is explicit, and it looks to me that Montgomery predicted what actually happened in principle: an attritional battle on the left and eventual break out on the right. The time scale was about right as well. If you have a verifiable alternative report, then stick it in. Analysing what was said and meant during the battle is problematic owing to the politicking and the unreliability of Montgomery's report up the chain of command (as discussed in the articles). I think, because of the length of the article, unless it is really important or illustrative of a larger point, a discussion of individual operations won't fit in.

The article is still a wafer long, so I have been trying to keep it short and remove repetitions, apologies if I have stepped on any toes. Again, for this reason I think it might be best if battle descriptions are left to the battle articles. I also stuck the right honourable back: the fact he was a privy councillor is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. MAG1 00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I found the Manteuffel quote in chapter 13 of The Battle of the Bulge - Hitler's Final Gamble, Patrick Delaforce (2004). Delaforce doesn't give his own source.

Can't find the version of the Monty quote on the Scheldt that I quoted but there's a fuller version in chapter 7 of The Battle for the Rhine 1944 by Robin Neilland. This is referenced to Monty's Memoirs. The sense is the same.

Try this page: [3] Not for the thumbnail biography, but for the quotes that follow. Folks at 137 10:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the best assessment of Monty's generalship in Normandy is found in Carlo D'Este's Decision In Normandy. There's little question that the original plan was *not* followed. That's not a criticism of Montgomery, by the way. Plans often don't work out. A great commander will then improvise a new solution. Montgomery did that. DMorpheus 13:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Monty's problem was that, for some reason, he couldn't bring himself to admit that his plans had not been perfect and perfectly executed and recognise that his ability to improvise when faced with the plan going awry was just as commendable as producing a perfect plan in the first place. Dabbler 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely one of the points D'Este makes. It is unfortunate that Montgomery made quite an effort to 'spin' (as we say in the US) the story to show that all had gone exactly according to plan. It is no blemish on his record to acknowledge that it didn't. But he himself seems not to have thought about it that way. DMorpheus 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, DMorpheus, thanks for comments, I agree with you totally. My concern about Normandy was that some like to wheel out some strange theories (such as those you dealt with above) not based on the facts, so I thought it would be best if things were as explicit as possible. I think what is relevant is that the broad outline of what happened was envisaged (especially the length of the battle). Hope what is there now is ok. The failure to admit that something has not gone exactly to plan seems to have been a generic problem for Montgomery, so I have put it in the character and controversy section. For my part, I certainly don't mind Montgomery's blemishes being on display, provided they actually existed. MAG1 00:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)