Home & Garden38 mins ago
Why do the Americans not like Montgomery?
I have read quite a lot of WW2 history and keep coming across some common themes among US historians.
There is one which occurs not just in history but in popular film too ( Band of Brothers , Private Ryan for instance ).
It is that americans really don't rate Montgomery as a General - he is called slow , plodding, unadventurous and more besides.
I know Brit bashing is de rigeur in US movies ( esp those with Mel Gibson ) but how much of a point do they have? Was Monty over-rated?
There is one which occurs not just in history but in popular film too ( Band of Brothers , Private Ryan for instance ).
It is that americans really don't rate Montgomery as a General - he is called slow , plodding, unadventurous and more besides.
I know Brit bashing is de rigeur in US movies ( esp those with Mel Gibson ) but how much of a point do they have? Was Monty over-rated?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by airbolt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Monty is also portrayed very badly in the film Patton.
It seems Patton did not like him, and found him rather slow and plodding, whereas Patton would drive his men relentlessly.
Operation Market Garden was also Monty's idea and that was a disaster.
I gather Monty was very arrogant and rubbed people up the wrong way, even the other British officers, so maybe that is why Americans did not like him.
I do not know enough about military strategy (or monty's full life) to know if he was a good general or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Law_Montg omery%2C_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein
It seems Patton did not like him, and found him rather slow and plodding, whereas Patton would drive his men relentlessly.
Operation Market Garden was also Monty's idea and that was a disaster.
I gather Monty was very arrogant and rubbed people up the wrong way, even the other British officers, so maybe that is why Americans did not like him.
I do not know enough about military strategy (or monty's full life) to know if he was a good general or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Law_Montg omery%2C_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein
In fact in the Wiki article above there is a section called:
Assessment of Montgomery as a military commander
To give an idea why he was not liked (by anyone it seems) the Wiki article also says:
Montgomery did not get on with his contemporaries and mostly associated with junior officers. He was insensitive, conceited, and boastful. He was not an easy man to know socially and not loyal to the staff officers serving immediately under him. His dismissive and occasionally insulting attitude to others often soured opinions about his abilities and personality.
Assessment of Montgomery as a military commander
To give an idea why he was not liked (by anyone it seems) the Wiki article also says:
Montgomery did not get on with his contemporaries and mostly associated with junior officers. He was insensitive, conceited, and boastful. He was not an easy man to know socially and not loyal to the staff officers serving immediately under him. His dismissive and occasionally insulting attitude to others often soured opinions about his abilities and personality.
Market Garden wasn't a disaster. It was just a very partial success.
I think the gripe that a lot of people have with Monty is that after the war he did tend to get a bit over-rated. El-Alamein for instance was elevated at a time when a victory was sorely needed, despite the fact that in terms of skill etc. it was an average victory at best. Market Garden also met with rather mixed success, and due to the desperately-needed political value of victory, Monty's successes tended to get pushed above their merit. Which, to be fair, isn't really his fault.
I think the gripe that a lot of people have with Monty is that after the war he did tend to get a bit over-rated. El-Alamein for instance was elevated at a time when a victory was sorely needed, despite the fact that in terms of skill etc. it was an average victory at best. Market Garden also met with rather mixed success, and due to the desperately-needed political value of victory, Monty's successes tended to get pushed above their merit. Which, to be fair, isn't really his fault.
Operation Market Garden was an utter disaster. Thousands of British paratroopers and glider troops landed smack bang in the middle of a German tank division in the Netherlands. No ordinary tank division either. These were battle hardened veterans from the Russian front who had been sent to the Netherlands for light training for a rest.
The really bad thing though is that British Intelligence knew they were there but Monty insisted on pressing ahead with the operation.
Calling Operation Market Garden a partial success is using the same propoganda rubbish-speak as those who refer to Dunkirk as a tactical withdrawal. Dunkirk was another failure. The British were ill-prepared, ill-trained (the British Expeditionary Force contained many Territorial Army soldiers!) and were beaten into the sea by a superior opponent.
Montgomery was typical of his senior officer class of the time. Many officers bought commissions and rank, rather than earned them through ability and intelligence. Read up about the British surrender of Singapore. 100,000 British troops were ordered by their senior officers to lay down their arms and surrender to the Japanese. These officers were the worst of the worst who had been put to pasture in Singapore and were more interested in knocking back pink gins and partying. When a really serious enemy, the Japs, came along, they couldn't cope. Zero leadership qualities. Churchill said at the time "why couldn't they fight like their fathers did in the last war?"
The really bad thing though is that British Intelligence knew they were there but Monty insisted on pressing ahead with the operation.
Calling Operation Market Garden a partial success is using the same propoganda rubbish-speak as those who refer to Dunkirk as a tactical withdrawal. Dunkirk was another failure. The British were ill-prepared, ill-trained (the British Expeditionary Force contained many Territorial Army soldiers!) and were beaten into the sea by a superior opponent.
Montgomery was typical of his senior officer class of the time. Many officers bought commissions and rank, rather than earned them through ability and intelligence. Read up about the British surrender of Singapore. 100,000 British troops were ordered by their senior officers to lay down their arms and surrender to the Japanese. These officers were the worst of the worst who had been put to pasture in Singapore and were more interested in knocking back pink gins and partying. When a really serious enemy, the Japs, came along, they couldn't cope. Zero leadership qualities. Churchill said at the time "why couldn't they fight like their fathers did in the last war?"
They were aiming to take 3 bridges. They took two. I'm not arguing Market Garden was a triumph, but it wasn't a total failure, and is therefore disqualified from being termed a disaster.
Dunkirk allowed 100,000 (from memory - my figures may be wrong) British soldiers to return home successfully and fight another day and prepare for the Battle of Britain. Is that a success? No. But it's hardly a disaster either. You underestimate the potential value of a good retreat.
Dunkirk allowed 100,000 (from memory - my figures may be wrong) British soldiers to return home successfully and fight another day and prepare for the Battle of Britain. Is that a success? No. But it's hardly a disaster either. You underestimate the potential value of a good retreat.
americans hate monty for a number of reasons,
he was gay
market garden wasn't the success they had hoped for
Patton went rushing forward to reach berlin, against not only monty's advice/orders but also american generals and senior ranking officers, monty brought up the rear along with another american general, these 2 got patton out of the mess he was in when the germans had cut him off which led many to blame america for the russians beating the allied forces to berlin which would have perhaps avoided the cold war etc in the following years
its just another case of americans not being able to take the blame for their bullish actions when it goes wrong
he was gay
market garden wasn't the success they had hoped for
Patton went rushing forward to reach berlin, against not only monty's advice/orders but also american generals and senior ranking officers, monty brought up the rear along with another american general, these 2 got patton out of the mess he was in when the germans had cut him off which led many to blame america for the russians beating the allied forces to berlin which would have perhaps avoided the cold war etc in the following years
its just another case of americans not being able to take the blame for their bullish actions when it goes wrong
he had a wife and child. I know that doesn't prove anything (nor does his strenuous opposition to legalisation of homosexual activity) but in those days it would probably have been enough to stop people gossiping.
As the Wiki article makes clear, he was popular with his men, and El Alamein was the first big allied land victory of the war. (Soldiers like it when they start winning.) I think Americans may partly have disliked him for being an uppity Brit with a brusque manner; he worked hard at getting on with his own men but put less effort into wooing Americans.
As the Wiki article makes clear, he was popular with his men, and El Alamein was the first big allied land victory of the war. (Soldiers like it when they start winning.) I think Americans may partly have disliked him for being an uppity Brit with a brusque manner; he worked hard at getting on with his own men but put less effort into wooing Americans.
The Wiki article touches on his sexuality.
Ironically, a number of Montgomery's biographers, including Chalfont (1976) (who found something "disturbingly equivocal" in "his relations with boys and young men") and Nigel Hamilton (2002) have suggested that he may himself have been a repressed homosexual; in the late 1940s he conducted an affectionate friendship with a Swiss boy, Lucien Treub.
Ironically, a number of Montgomery's biographers, including Chalfont (1976) (who found something "disturbingly equivocal" in "his relations with boys and young men") and Nigel Hamilton (2002) have suggested that he may himself have been a repressed homosexual; in the late 1940s he conducted an affectionate friendship with a Swiss boy, Lucien Treub.
During research for a Master's degree I once had the good fortune to interview a British army major rtd. who had been close to Montgomery during WWII. He said that as a product of the public school system he had a very superior attitude and persona which could be easily mistaken, especially by US laid back senior officers, as arrogance. He was loved by 'his' troops and overall could be judged as a successful wartime commander. He was cautious and not cavalier in his campaigns and that was good for the troops if not good for the likes of Patton, even with his pearly handled revolvers.
My major said that Monty was thorough and dedicated but lacked the ability to see beyond his war. Eisenhower was a dest General but was a man manager and had the broader picture in his head. He also said that in the event of Ike being assassinated then the common choice in all Allied senior ranks was Alanbrooke.
My major said that Monty was thorough and dedicated but lacked the ability to see beyond his war. Eisenhower was a dest General but was a man manager and had the broader picture in his head. He also said that in the event of Ike being assassinated then the common choice in all Allied senior ranks was Alanbrooke.
Seems to me there are three answers to Monty:
1) Monty was an infantry officer in WWI; Patton was a tanker then-the men had two completely different perceptions.
2) Arrogance-see his press interview after the Battle of the Bulge.
3) Monty made his reputation at El Alimain and would never risk it. Ariel Sharon of Israel said Patton was the only commander who would push the absolute limit to win a victory; Sharon did the same.
In the same note as the guy who stated that senior officers thought Alanbrooke would replace Ike if needed. NO WAY. With the US providing 80% of the troops the CO would have been American. Probably Bradley. Thanks.
1) Monty was an infantry officer in WWI; Patton was a tanker then-the men had two completely different perceptions.
2) Arrogance-see his press interview after the Battle of the Bulge.
3) Monty made his reputation at El Alimain and would never risk it. Ariel Sharon of Israel said Patton was the only commander who would push the absolute limit to win a victory; Sharon did the same.
In the same note as the guy who stated that senior officers thought Alanbrooke would replace Ike if needed. NO WAY. With the US providing 80% of the troops the CO would have been American. Probably Bradley. Thanks.
It's also worth remembering (and we didn't know this until the 1960s) that in the North African campaign Monty had access - through Bletchley Park's breaking of the German Enigma codes - to every signal that passed between Rommel and Berlin in both directions. Also, that same code-breaking meant that the RAF could sink every supply ship on its way to Rommel from Sicily. In the end Rommel was left with fuel for only 13 tanks.
Even then, Monty was so plodding that the Americans were furious that he didn't get to Sicily quick enough to support them.
Even then, Monty was so plodding that the Americans were furious that he didn't get to Sicily quick enough to support them.
-- answer removed --
Americans not liking Monty, what do they know about spin bowling.
Serious though, Monty`s mishaps seem to have inspired the US because they are a sham when it comes to war.
The only war they can claim to have been victorious is, their own civil war.(apart from hollywood bull----)
In the current climate, they will also finish second.
PS yes I do not like the yanks
Serious though, Monty`s mishaps seem to have inspired the US because they are a sham when it comes to war.
The only war they can claim to have been victorious is, their own civil war.(apart from hollywood bull----)
In the current climate, they will also finish second.
PS yes I do not like the yanks
Well lets see.. Monty was only half heartedly successful if the Americans threw supplies at him, which history states he was quite free with. Americans lost tons of men on ships keeping his "El Alamein" walk across North African chasing the starving, ill supplied Germans alive.
He took the easiest routes in Sicily and bitched because Patton got to Messina first (not a big Patton fan either). Talked Eisenhower into giving him the least bloody beaches during D-Day (much respect for the British commandos though) Had almost every action covered by *huge* American 8th Army bombardments.
Lets just Market Garden was a grab for glory that didn't work out. He left the Americans to fight through Montecasino to create a new front at Churchill's request.
As a strategist, he was below average in my eyes. He relied on "expendable" foreign troops. Americans regard him generally as though he thought Americans were fine fodder for the cannon, but not for much else.
I think Patton was a primadonna as well, but at least he understood history, and was willing to research situations before running headlong into it...
And yes, his slowness squandered advantages, resources, and lives.
He took the easiest routes in Sicily and bitched because Patton got to Messina first (not a big Patton fan either). Talked Eisenhower into giving him the least bloody beaches during D-Day (much respect for the British commandos though) Had almost every action covered by *huge* American 8th Army bombardments.
Lets just Market Garden was a grab for glory that didn't work out. He left the Americans to fight through Montecasino to create a new front at Churchill's request.
As a strategist, he was below average in my eyes. He relied on "expendable" foreign troops. Americans regard him generally as though he thought Americans were fine fodder for the cannon, but not for much else.
I think Patton was a primadonna as well, but at least he understood history, and was willing to research situations before running headlong into it...
And yes, his slowness squandered advantages, resources, and lives.
My father was in Burma just after WWII when 'Monty' came to visit. The army had organised a very swish hut to be constructed and furnished for him. Mysteriously it burned down hours before he was due to arrive to much cheering from the men....
Far from being much loved by the men of the British army as has been stated previously, maybe this was only by those he got close to. For the every day soldier who had to carry out his orders it was a completely different world - one he got involved with as infrequently as he could - except if the cameras were around....
Far from being much loved by the men of the British army as has been stated previously, maybe this was only by those he got close to. For the every day soldier who had to carry out his orders it was a completely different world - one he got involved with as infrequently as he could - except if the cameras were around....
-- answer removed --
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles88 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles94 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles101 mins ago
Home & Garden103 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.