Talk:Bernard Montgomery/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Assessment and Character

As no one has really defended them, I have removed the Assessment and Character sections. There was some good stuff there and I would welcome having it added back in. When I say "good," I mean well sourced, balanced, and not drawing a conclusion. Rees11 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I think on the whole the article is fairly well-balanced as regards criticisms of Montgomery. One of the most noticeable aspects of Montgomery's life is that he appears to be someone that others 'love to hate' This seems to be based almost entirely on his personality, the criticisms of his military performance almost always seem to be based on either a misunderstanding of the circumstances at the time or just plain misleading statements made by people who had personal axes to grind.

• In Eisenhower's Lieutenants, historian Russell F. Weigley offers this criticism of Montgomery as a strategist:

• Field Marshal Montgomery almost never paid so much as lip service to the dictum that the destruction of the enemy forces is the object of military strategy. ... Montgomery's aggressiveness was that of the energetic fencer, not that of the general who annihilates enemy armies, of Napoleon, of Grant, or of Moltke.[115]

That doesn't seem to apply to the operation around Caen. "By the end of June, Rommel had concentrated seven panzer divisions against Monty’s British Sector. One was all the enemy could spare for the US front. Omar Bradley." Most of these SS panzer Divisions wouldn't agree with Montgomery being 'not that of the general who annihilates enemy armies'. You could also try telling that to the British and Canadian personnel involved. It doesn't help when you're facing tanks that outclass your own so that you can rely on losing the first two or three tanks in a column (sometimes more) before getting close enough to fire back.

• A 1984 Encyclopedia Britannica article sums up Montgomery's generalship in ambiguous terms, reflecting both the perception of his 'over-cautious' approach, but also his reputation for leadership and popularity as a 'soldier's general':

• A cautious, thorough strategist, Montgomery largely eschewed military innovation. Instead he insisted on complete readiness of both men and material before attempting a strike, a policy that exasperated his superiors, but produced several successes in battle, and his ensured popularity with the men.[116]

'largely eschewed military innovation' - well it was Montgomery who was responsible for the large-scale use of deception at El Alamein. He was also an eager advocate of The Funnies, the 79th Armoured Division. If THAT doesn't count as "military innovation" then nothing does.

'instead he insisted on complete readiness of both men and material before attempting a strike' I would have thought that that was simple common sense. One wasn't fighting a second-rate army that could be caught off-guard that easily, the German opposition were one of the best armies in the world at the time, and they didn't 'fall to pieces' when the going got tough like certain other ones I can mention.

I'm no great fan of Montgomery (it's ancient history to me, and I couldn't care less) but it has always struck me that so much of the criticism of him is based purely on personal dislike, the military criticism almost always seems to be based on either ignorance of the facts or just plain falsehoods. A lot of the criticism seems to be coming from military people who never faced anything other than a small (albeit still potent) proportion of the German armies in the West. The fact is that almost ALL of the Wermacht and Waffen SS Divisions after Normandy were fighting the British and Canadians, the greater (and most powerful) part of the German armies in the West. The critics were for the most part facing considerably weaker forces, and it's almost laughable to hear how they would have 'pushed aside' the German forces facing the British and Canadians. The truth is, they would have been annihilated. If I have 7 of the best panzer divisions facing me and you have only 1 facing you, and you then accuse me of being 'slow' my first reaction would be to laugh. I'd then think you a bloody-fool.

I suspect that a lot of the bad feeling against Montgomery stems from the Battle of the Bulge, when Eisenhower placed him in charge of recovering the situation and then SHAEF forgot to tell the Press of the fact - there was very little time in-which to act, so its perhaps understandable they forgot. After a press conference in which Montgomery told them how HE was commanding the forces involved, many US critics thought that Montgomery was lying, whereas he was actually telling them the truth.

I think that the question of Montgomery's reputation illustrates well the problem of judging the veracity of critics, whether their criticisms are valid or not. One of the most noticeable things about his most ardent critics is that so many of them appear to be speaking from positions of ignorance, either due to relying on simple errors of fact or reporting, or through lack of experience leading to a misunderstanding of the (sometimes complex) situation at the time. A lot of them simply don't know what they are talking about.

As a final aside, I suspect that what many of Montgomery's critics found most galling was that he simply did not care what they thought of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.93 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. The discussion here should be about which sources, on both sides of the question, are most reliable, and what information to include in the article. I'm inclined to remove all the unsourced stuff from the criticism sections. Rees11 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's up to you. What I was trying to point out was the many of the so-called 'expert' critics were talking out of their arses, either through ignorance, or in worst cases, through an attempt to deliberately mislead. At best, many display a wilful misunderstanding of the facts. A section on criticisms is fine as long as Wiki pages on other military commanders have equivalent (and equally critical) sections. I suspect I'll have a long wait before that happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.93 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with just removing the sections too. Rees11 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does not seem balanced to me. It doesn't even mention Market Garden until the end, and then only briefly. Competence with the advantage is not greatness. Montgomery cannot be called a brilliant strategist in any of his battles and he was a bit of plodder in them all. Did he do anything to shorten the war? Market Garden (as the article states) prolonged the war. It must be said that a broad front strategy is what Ike wanted, but this article is too kind to this general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating....I look forward to reading your forthcoming book on the subject. However, this POV stuff has no place in this document! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'd pulp it :). I'd like to see whether he actually associated his name to his (or her) book instead of the usual anonymity. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even mention Market Garden - actually if you read the book A Bridge Too Far by Cornelius Ryan you will get a reasonably un-biased account of the situation during Market Garden and it becomes fairly obvious that the root cause of the failure of Market Garden was that the Son bridge was allowed to be blown, delaying the advance of XXX Corps. Ryan was an Irishman (later American) and unlikely to be pro-British in his account. The Son bridge wasn't a British responsibility, and it wasn't them who failed to capture it intact, although this fact is given almost no prominence in many accounts. The plan of Market Garden required all three bridges to be captured intact so that XXX Corps could then advance into Arnhem, the most technically difficult bridge to capture, the Arnhem one, being allocated to the British 1st Airborne Division as they were the most experienced of the Allied airborne forces and less likely to cock-it-up. So, of the three bridges, the UK captured theirs (the most difficult one, as it was in a town and more easily defended) while of the other two bridges, one was captured, the other was blown-up, so, who's fault for the failure of Market Garden does it appear to be now? If the Son bridge had been captured (as it was supposed to be) then XXX Corps, an armoured corps, would have been able to meet up with the 1st Airborne Division holding the Arnhem bridge, and relieve them. The delay caused by the failure to capture the Son bridge meant that the defending Germans were able to organise themselves, which wasn't intended in the original plan, XXX Corps being intended to 'motor' down the road to Arnhem against the little opposition that could then have been arranged in the short time this was all due to occur. This never happened because the Son bridge was blown and the Germans then had time to mount an organised defence, the extra time allowing them to discover what was happening and then to plan their defence accordingly, which they were particularly adept at doing. The additional German forces that were in the area would have been dealt with by the tanks of XXX Corps if they had been able to reach Arnhem which is why the operation was allowed to go ahead even after the additional recuperating German armour was discovered. Market Garden was meant to be a Blitzkrieg style of surprise attack, fast and without the defending forces being given time to recover, and although the plan was risky, due to it depending on the use of a single road, it was possible, but the delay caused by the Son bridge being blown caused it to grind to a halt. That wasn't the fault of either Montgomery or the British.

BTW, the Hollywood-ised version of Ryan's book differs considerably from the book in order make it palatable for the majority of movie-goers in it's intended market, making it positively misleading as far as historical accuracy is concerned. Read the book, it's excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.47.119 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New Zealanders

"By the time the offensive was ready in late October, Eighth Army had 231,000 men on its ration strength[71] including British, Australian, South African, Indian, Greek and Free French units."

The Second New Zealand division is mentioned by Winston Churchill in his "The Second World War" and also in Wikipedia's article on El Alamein. Cwelgo (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy and Paste

i was doing some reserch on Monty and noticed this page had pretty much the same words writen... http://www.jackbacon.com/products/product_printpage.asp?PDID=101... something needs to changed here. i dont know who jacked who, but originality is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.250.42 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a copy of the Wikipedia original. Someone who knows the GFDL better than me would have to judge if that's in breach of the licence. Leithp 19:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary Sources?

I see that some of the Reference books have been repositioned into a sub-heading "Primary sources". This makes these volumes seem more important. However, I'm not sure that there is any value in separately identifying sources that are personal experiences - they are no more useful and quite often less reliable (because the author may be self-serving - doubtless the case for Montgomery and Eisenhower!). Any objection if I put them back into one list? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Victory

"A photograph from October 1918 shows the then unknown Lt.-Col. Montgomery standing in front of Winston Churchill (Minister of Munitions) at the victory parade at Lille" Victory in October? Is the photo in the public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.115.137 (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

here it is, 28 October 1918 (Lille had been liberated ten days earlier):

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=32325

It's also in Vol I of the Nigel Hamilton official biography and numerous other books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.33.4 (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Market Garden

The primary (and unstated) purpose of Operation Market Garden was to delay the planned V-2 rocket offensive against London that was then known to be about to start. The objective was to force the mobile German V-2 units out of range of London. This would not have been known by many of the Allied personnel involved, including most of the Allied Generals, etc, only Eisenhower, and Montgomery would have been aware of this.

The V-2 had only a limited range, and once the German firing units were pushed back beyond this range they were effectively (from London's point of view) harmless. The UK Goverment had been extremely worried about the effects of 'another Blitz', and they had been following the events at Peenemünde since first signs of the V-weapons had been found on PRU photographs in 1943. That was also why the expended so many bomber sorties on the targets, both at Peenemünde and elsewhere.

You see, the V-1 flying bomb needed large, semi-permanent installations to fire it from, ramps, bunkers, etc, but the V-2 didn't. It could be fired from any clear piece of ground, a clearing in a forest, etc. In fact, they were even being fired from The Hague (in Holland, where Market Garden took place) itself. The V-1 launch/firing facilities could be bombed, and were. The V-2 ones couldn't. Once a V-2 had been launched that was it - there was no defence against it. Allied intelligence knew that the normal V-2 warhead was high explosive, but they didn't know what else might be used. So stopping the V-2 was considered very important.

Market garden failed - but the planned German V-2 offensive on London never even got near what they had intended. Just as well, as, like Hitler intended, it may well have even altered the course of the war.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and the V-2 attacks that actually occurred may not have been as effective as a single thousand bomber raid, but the V-2 caused a lot of very senior Allied people a lot of sleepless nights. They didn't know much of what we know now, see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.45.103 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, whatever you say. Gave me a good chuckle. You're pullin a classic Monte, fail in your mission and then chnage the objectives to hide your failure.

"Altered the course of the war". Only Hitler in cloud cuckoo land could have possibly believed that (and even he probably didnt), let alone Ike and the Allies or any sane person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.128.156 (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reputable history book listing "putting the V2s out of range" as one of the many reasons for Market Garden (few things in life have just one cause) then by all means add it in.Paulturtle (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I just love the last-but-one comment by the clown who had never been within 10 miles of a military installation.

As to the article's intro: it's utterly ridiculous, vindictive, childish and tendentious to put such emphasis on Monty's responsibility for Market Garden, among the many campaigns he had fought, most of them successfully. There were all kinds of reasons for the eventual outcome: some bold schemes succeed, some fail. Overall, Monty is probably responsible for shortening the war by 6 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1. You have no idea whatsoever whether or not the poster has been near a military installation and 2) the talk pages are not a forum - statements like "shortened the war by six months" are not supported by the Reliable Sources; if you have a truly scholarly reference that supports this view, please cite it, otherwise it is just a POV. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Later Life Accusations

I have subsequently removed the section as the citations associated with these accusations have yet to appear even three years later, the one reference going on about a 'friendship with a young Swiss boy' (save us from friendships with children!) has disappeared and cannot be corroborated anyway.Twobells (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't have done as it is "corroborated" in several reputable works, some of whose authors spoke to him, and any of which you could have spent your time tracing. It's now back in. I don't have cites for the stuff on his period vintage racial views (although I do remember reading them once in some big book full of photos in W H Smith) or the Chalfont biog (although I do remember reading them in a copy in a second hand bookshop). The rest is all duly cited. The very fact that his triple-decker official biographer chose to write a new biography on this topic makes it worthy of note, whether you agree with his analysis or not. As for the Lucien Treub story, nobody has suggested that it went beyond a bit of over-familiarity of the kind that used to be not uncommon in lonely bachelor schoolmasters, but it does shed light on the personality of a man who found it hard to form relationships with adults.Paulturtle (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DSO citation

Has some mishap occurred with the DSO citation? It looks most peculiar - not like anything I've seen on WP before and not pleasant to the eye? Tim riley (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Montgomery Town in Punjab In recognition of the meritorious services of Montgomery, a town in Punjab (Now in Pakistan) was named after him. However, the town was renamed as Sahiwal in later years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.194.0.194 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

His grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.207.43 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"The rain also fell on the Germans"

The article says "Montgomery, standing before his officers at headquarters and close to tears, announced that he was forced to call off the pursuit. Corelli Barnett has pointed out that the rain also fell on the Germans, and that the weather is therefore an inadequate explanation for the failure to exploit the breakthrough, but nevertheless the Battle of El Alamein had been a great success." I'm no expert on military matters, but the view attrubted to Barnett does not seem to me to be very...intelligent. We are talking about a pursuit here. The whole point is that the Axis forces were in full retreat, abandoning most of their heavy equipment. I thought one point of a pursuit is to ensure that they do just that. Surely, the escaping army without heavy armour is always going to be able to move faster than the pursuing army which still has the power-advantage of heavy armour. If the pursuing army abandons its heavy armour to keep up, it also abandons its advantage, meaning that lightly armed troops running ahead are liable to be isolated, trapped and suffer heavy casualties without any advantage. In mechanised warfare surely bad weather will be to the advantage of the retreating army, and it would be dangerous to push the pursuit if you are only going to expose your own troops to potentially severe casualties with no gain. Or have I missed something? Paul B (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was a lively debate. I'm glad I took the trouble to comment. Paul B (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Posts can get overlooked. That said, your doubts over Barnett seem reasonable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the Talk page is to debate the article and whether or not the sources are reliable and correctly quoted, not to debate whether or not the sources are correct in their opinions. If Corelli wrote that in his book and it was correctly interpreted, then it is a comment that can be included regardless of whether Corelli's opinion is correct or not. If someone else writes that the weather was not a factor, then that too should be included and cited. Dabbler (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Given how controversial Montgomery's reputation used to be (although the fury seems to have died away a bit in recent years) there is probably room for some properly cited analysis of his command decisions and abilities. I'm not going to do it, I don't really have time, but I'm sure somebody does.Paulturtle (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apartheid

Reported in the UK press at the time of Montgomerys visit to South Africa was an offer, by Montgomery, "to clear the blacks out of South Africa". I never did learn the reaction of the Africaaners to this offer, was he hoping to become a general again or did he get an offer to become a private soldier?

I well remember Montgomery while he was still alive and his "now then men" start to most of his speeches. I also remain convinced that when WW2 ended Montgomery was an actor without a stage and tried desperately to find another stage.AT Kunene (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Reported by whom? I see a quote from the Daily Worker, that most objective of newspapers, but that hardly means that it's true. I can't see any mention of any such offer by Montgomery in The Times, and it contradicts his public statements that apartheid was helping blacks, and that blacks should be enlisted into the South African Defence Forces. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Al Alamein

The battle of Al Alamein was close to never being launched. The British troops in north Africa were beginning to ask themselves what were they doing there with a German invasion of the UK likely in the near future. The Australian Prime Minister was asking Churchill "why is the Australian army in North Africa with the Japanese almost on the Australian door step". The Indian troops were becoming rattled by Ghandis "Independance for India" campaign. AT Kunene (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How close? —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Source/location of the colour photograph

The colour photo of Monty with location unknown; have a look at the black and white photo of him with Simonds, Horrocks et al. His dress is exactly the same down to the folds in his scarf, and the buckle of his belt being offset to his left. The same buttons on his Denison smock are shiny, and so on. I'd bet a few quid they were taken as part of the same shoot. Anyone else got any views? Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

American divisions count

The divisions numbers given in this article : "The increasing preponderance of American troops in the European theatre (from five out of ten divisions at D-Day to 72 out of 85 in 1945) " contradict the numbers given in this Wikipeida article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Allied_invasion_of_Germany#Allied_forces which says "At the very beginning of 1945, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, General Dwight D. Eisenhower had 73 divisions under his command in Northwestern Europe, of which 49 were infantry divisions, 20 armored divisions and four airborne divisions. Forty-nine of these divisions were American, 12 British, eight French, three Canadian and one Polish. Another seven American divisions arrived during February,[3] with continual further reinforcement of the other Allied powers′ divisions, " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.24.133 (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I'm failing this article for GA as it needs sigificant, and obvious, work. In addition the nominator appears to have conducted no work on the article. Some examples of things that would need looking at:

• Lead needs expanding
• There are numerous prose issues from a brief scan (for example; the Legacy section is basically a list and needs work to make it flow).
• Image placement may need review
• Section headings may need review (some "blank" sections etc.)
• Many issues from the first GAR still exist

I hope this will help going forward. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reputation in proportion

I think there should be a section on how his strengths and weaknesses are now perceived, since his reputation had been largely inflated for propaganda reasons, and later demolished by critics with their own agenda. The consensus among younger, unbiased historians would usefully complete the picture. Valetude (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good intention but it's not sure it will be achieved one day. Per example, some years ago there was a kind of controversy in Germany about the real Rommel and the image we had of him after WWII. As Montogmery, he was used heavily for propaganda meanings. Montgomery will stay as the favorite British general of WWII and so it will always be controvertial into trying to complete the picture of the guy used to boost the British morale during the second world war, especially after Dunkirk, Tobruk, Singapore, Hong-Kong, etc. Let's take the second battle of El Alamein, during years historians and public perception ignored the fact that Monty enjoyed the defensive line made by Auchinleck (in his memoirs, Monty lied in saying Auchinleck wanted to retreat) but also thanks to ULTRA he knew the battle plan of Rommel (in a propaganda use, Monty had a portrait of Rommel and was able to decipher his enemy's intentions from it). Does that reduce the ability of Montgomery as a general, not at all. It just puts more reality than myth. 82.122.183.120 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)