Hello guys! If you like our work please subscribe to our second channel The History Chronicles kzread.info

My father was Monty’s personal pilot based at Odiham in the 50s. He was pilot of a Dakota. Had many stories of the ‘old man’.

Market Garden was a COMPLETE disaster

@PeopleProfiles

2 жыл бұрын

No one said it wasn't.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

Market Garden freed a fifth of the Dutch population, hindered German rocket attacks on London, stretched German defences another fifty miles, and left the allies well placed to attack into Germany in the years ahead. Market Garden’s casualties (17,000), should be compared to allied failures in the same period at Aachen (20,000 casualties), Metz (45,000 casualties), and the Hurtgen Forest (55,000 casualties). (20,000 casualties).

@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85

Жыл бұрын

Which wasn't planned by Monty.

@brianhodgson9547

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85 yes it was

@andym9571

6 ай бұрын

Despite everything it would have been a complete success had Gavin and the 82nd had tried in force to take Njmegan bridge on the first day as per plan. Instead waiting for 30 Corps to turn up to take it and make them 36 hrs late.

Eisenhower should be granted sainthood for achieving much in the face of overwhelming egos. It requires a miracle and that's definitely one.

@mayageorge1847

3 жыл бұрын

Cat-kettle-black

@kylebritt1225

3 жыл бұрын

@@jimmymalone9139 So?

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Patriia Palmer Eisenhower got in the way of professional soldiers doing their jobs.

@robertlewis1965

3 жыл бұрын

Ike submerged his ego so he could get all the other "horses "" pulling the same direction, well mostly.

@robertgoines1831

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed that it was a tough job + people also listened to each other back and there was a little back and + people came to a consensus. Now people are too polarized and it's almost impossible because people on different sides refuse to give any ground because they wanna appear strong when it actually shows weakness

Market Garden was HUGE mistake

@Challis1989

3 жыл бұрын

A gamble worth paying. Poor radios was the downfall of the British attack on arnhem. Seen a few vids exploring the facts that if the yanks had taken the middle bridge instead of digging in for a phantom attack then it might have been soo much different.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Robert Butler 'Market Garden was HUGE mistake' Your words. How so?..

@robertbutler2481

3 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 Operation Market Garden was a tactical defeat for the Allies, as it failed to achieve all its objectives. It failed to secure the key bridge at Arnhem, which meant that they were halted at the Rhine. This probably delayed the eventual Allied victory in western Europe.See a film called AvBridge Too Far.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@robertbutler2481 How did Market Garden delay the eventual Allied victory in western Europe? 'See a film called AvBridge Too Far.' I have. Here are are a few observation of that fim: The preamble stuff about the Germans having a higher opinion One of Bradley’s subordinate commanders, Patton over Montgomery. That didn’t happen. The German did not have any opinion of Patton until very late in the war - if at all. He did not even rate a German dossier before D-Day. The entire Market Plan being found on British troops. That didn’t happen. ARNHEM BY MAJOR-GENERAL R.E. URQUAHART CB DSO WITH WILFRED GRETOREX CASSELL & COMPANY LTD 1958 Page 42 ‘Two hours after the landings had begun, the complete orders for the entire Airborne Corps operation were on the desk of General Student in his cottage at Vught. They had been found on the body of an American soldier in a glider shot down close to the village. Thus, the carelessness or willful disobedience of one soldier gave the Germans an immediate compensation for the advantage we had of surprise.’ The scene showing the boat assault of the main Nijmegen Bridge only involving US paratroopers and no one else. That didn’t happen. British Royal Engineers was also involved - including a relative who was wounded at Nijmegen. The scene showing a Dutch doctor arranging a ceasefire to get wounded people to hospitals and places away from the battle. That didn’t happen. The ceasefire was arranged by Graeme Warrack, the 1st Airborne Division senior medical officer. Warrack was still alive when this film was made. I wonder what he made of it? This theft of Warrack’s history was condemned by General Hackett when he reviewed this film. There is plenty more. Overall, the film is in line with previous US chauvinistic works by Joseph E Levine, the proper history of the undertaking is twisted to have a most definite anti-British angle with the Americans portrayed as slick professionals and the British as bumbling amateurs.

Much enjoyed this well-balanced video. Interesting that after all this time so many join the fray, so to speak about Field Marshal Montgomery. There is a snippet that relates elements of Patton’s 3rd army were assigned to Montgomery. My father, who would have been 99 next month was one of them. Combat infantry, 95th infantry division, later known as the “iron men of Metz” Patton had outrun his supplies, Metz was heavily fortified and Patton ordered full frontal infantry assaults on essentially medieval type fortresses. Thereafter, building to building combat until Metz was taken . Of approximately 6500 guys, 2/3 casualties. Patton was a tank guy and my father felt he unnecessarily expended infantry lives. “Our blood ,his guts,” My dad had a very favorable impression of Montgomery. He believed he was very considerate of his men, he advised that before any engagement Montgomery would have the enemy shelled for hours and hours before the fighting was joined. Sometimes all night long before a battle. My father basically had six months straight of hellish combat. Had a lot of respect and admiration for Montgomery, as did most of his men.

@nspr9721

2 жыл бұрын

I really appreciate your sharing this mate. I am not unqualified worshipper of Montgomery and, like Patton, he had human frailties and limitations and both were almost certainly high-functioning aspergics, it is now commonly thought. However the extent of 'Monty bashing' is becoming devoid of logic, and as you describe - I too several times met outstanding US veterans with similar recollections of Montgomery's leadership as opposed to Patton's. (Patton too is highly deserving of respect but rose tinted spectacles do nobody any service)

@therandomnessnetwork1658

Жыл бұрын

@@nspr9721 I'm an American with British-Irish ancestry, I'm no worshiper of Monty but I think the pointless bashing in recent years is very unwarranted, he had his faults all of the semi legendary or legendary generals of history do, Monty was an exceptional general, most people's problem with him is that he was also quite opinionated and never said anything he didn't mean or believe, this caused other flag officers and members of high command to detest him, while the rank and file soldiers and junior officers thought very highly of him. Patton while being similar not only alienated himself from high command but his own men and his gung-ho attitude got scores of them killed pointlessly.

@nspr9721

Жыл бұрын

@@therandomnessnetwork1658 I really appreciate this 🙏 and the balanced sense of it - what an intelligent and measured post. Yes, Monty's conceit and terrible personal skills caused him no 3nd of self-infllicted problems, and towards the end after Normandy he came up against - as Patton did with US 90th division - the limits of what even an inspirational General can get a citizen Army to do. A stain on his record is his treatment of the heroic Polish paratroopers at Arnhem. Eisenhower truly proved his greatness in how he managed him. However like you say the vitriol and bashing, as if he was some rank incompetent, or the dig in 'Savig Private Ryan', is totally unwarranted. He was the right man for the citizen Army the UK, battered and unrecoverable from the 1st WW, had to fight with. I also had the privilege to meet US veterans who'd served under Montgomery and strangely they also liked him, and felt he was interested in their welfare over his personal glory, unlike Patton. An immensely able man, equally brilliant and flawed was Patton, but I met several US vets in the 90s and 00s with unflattering descriptions ('his guts, our blood' etc) Cheers again for a superb post

@Keboomrang

Жыл бұрын

Leo Major refuse the medal from Général Bernard Montgomery. Leo Major said he was very incompetent. Do your search of Leo Major...

@Annbosguy

Жыл бұрын

@@Keboomrang Leo Major was an immensely brave and heroic soldier, worthy of respect and admiration. But I disagree with his assessment of Monty. Best wishes to you

I said this on a similar video. In comparing him and Patton, to use an American football analogy, I've always pictured Monty and the "three yards and a cloud of dust" mindset. It's a very methodical approach that will reach it's goal, but it can also be unimaginative and time-consuming. Patton was more like the open-field runner who would make the long dashes downfield. I'm not saying Montgomery was a bad general, but just because you're good at your job doesn't mean you're easy to get along with. Many of his superiors and co-commanders frequently noted his lack of tact and diplomacy, and Montgomery himself admitted in a letter he wrote to Eisenhower that he was not an easy subordinate and liked to go his own way. I think it really boils down to the difference in command styles between American and British armies. Omar Bradley noted in his memoirs "In the U.S. Army, an order calls for instant compliance, whereas the British viewed an order as a basis for discussion between commanders. If there was a difference of opinion, it would be ironed out and the order might be amended. In contrast, the American army sought to work out any differences before issuing an order. Once an order was published, it could not be changed except by the issuing authority."

@lyndoncmp5751

3 ай бұрын

Problem with Patton is that the war in NW EUROPE 1944/45 was mostly (90%) slow, tough attrition with no opportunity to race down field, and as such (as in the Lorraine) Patton had no plan b. Even his boss Bradley said Patton was a "shallow commander".

@sharonprice42

Ай бұрын

Market Garden was a disaster, Montgomery wouldn't listen to advice and far too hesitant

@lyndoncmp5751

Ай бұрын

@@sharonprice42 Market Garden was actually the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. It took 100km of German held ground in just 3 days. It did better than Patton in the Lorraine and Hodges in the Hurtgen Forest. Montgomery DID listen to advice. He expanded and strengthened the oiginal plan of Operation Comet, which only involved the British and Polish paratroopers, into Operation Market Garden with the inclusion of the two American paratroop divisions. The operation was then taken over, planned and handled by the air commanders and, against Montgomery's recommendations, the were the ones who acted with caution. Brereton and Williams would not fly double missions on day one, no coup de mains on the main objectives were decided and Hollinghurst wouldn't fly closer to Arnhem. The operation failed due to the cautious air commanders. Eisenhower can be faulted for not stepping in.

@sharonprice42

Ай бұрын

@lyndoncmp5751 I think you are confused .You hold a different view to all the historians ,

@lyndoncmp5751

Ай бұрын

@@sharonprice42 Explain what part of my post is incorrect then.

Montgomery was a great general. When he first arrived in North Africa his troops morale was low. However, he raised their morale with his "no more withdrawals" speech. Earning the respect of your men, makes you a good leader.

@Tom_Cruise_Missile

Жыл бұрын

He was a decent general. He did some good work, had some serious fuckups, and some serious flaws.

@casedismissed8581

7 ай бұрын

@@Tom_Cruise_Missile "fuckups" what an under statement!! could never understand why eisenhower placated this little runt the way he did? yeah "market garden was a REAL "MASTERPIECE"!! if the fuel and material HADN'T been diverted from general patton to facilitate this limey dog and pony show, the war would have ended MUCH sooner!

@markkettlewell7441

Ай бұрын

@@Tom_Cruise_MissileAll the generals had flaws and inflated egos. Even Bradley. Ike did amazing things by keeping the three focused on the enemy and not at each other’s throats. As for Monty’s personality it has been suggested that he had a mild form of autism, which made it difficult to read other people’s feelings and mood. He had a breathtaking lack of tact, but he didn’t have personal animus against Patton or Bradley. He was genuinely shocked to find that Bradley hated him.

Montgomery was also the 'mastermind' behind the disastrous Marketgarden in Holland.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

By the time of Market Garden, Eisenhower was both Supreme Commander and Land Forces Commander.

@keithlenton5313

3 жыл бұрын

And sent my father to a prisoner of war camp, captured after the failure of market garden.

@photoisca7386

3 жыл бұрын

@@keithlenton5313 You're still bitter after 76 years? You should think yourself lucky he wasn't taken by the Japanese, then you would have something to moan about. Pathetic. Every family has a war story and a tragedy to tell.

@photoisca7386

3 жыл бұрын

He also planned the land strategy for Normandy. The Americans had their own duffers but they deflect attention away from them.

@keithlenton5313

3 жыл бұрын

@@photoisca7386 No one asked for your opinion, and I don’t care for your comments, you don’t know the aftermath of my Father story, thousands of Allied soldiers suffered because of bad decisions made by their superiors, not just Montgomery’s.

Montgomery was THE opportunistic general officer. His tactics were creative and exhaustive in the pursuit of achieving his strategic end: the victory of the beleaguered British Imperial forces which would result in his personal aggrandizement. He would be canonized by cannon. Monty was not quite Wellington but he was well enough.

@jacobbeaupre3940

2 жыл бұрын

Less a heratio Nelson More of a heratio nilson

Montgomery was a bigger hindrance to the allied war effort than the Germans.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

'Montgomery was a bigger hindrance to the allied war effort than the Germans.' Your words. Because?..

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

Again: 'Montgomery was a bigger hindrance to the allied war effort than the Germans.' Your words. Because?..

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

Ah! So you know nothing.

@johnburns4017

2 жыл бұрын

Stu Glenn You must stop making things up.

@diogocatalano9557

3 ай бұрын

Montgomery deliberately left the Americans alone in Naples. He lied about difficulties he would have faced crossing bridges, costing lots of American lives. He only cared about his career and fame.@@johnburns4017

45:00 CAEN at this point the narrative is seriously misleading. In fact the Normandy strategy was down to Montgomery as the Land Force Commander. At St. Paul's School on 7th April 1944 (and again in May) Montgomery set out his plan for the Normandy battle to Eisenhower and the other assembled top military brass. In short its aim was to suck in the bulk of the Panzer and their infantry units onto the Anglo-Canadian sector allowing Bradley to plan the outbreak of his army in the American sector - 'Operation Cobra' as it was entitled. It worked and the Americans surged forward against seriously diminished opposition. Montgomery had predicted D+90 as the successful termination date of the Normandy Campaign, in fact his armies were at the Seine 11 days earlier. This was a great Commander.

@grumpyoldman8661

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 Sources rather. There are many because I've simply set out historical facts rather than an opinion. A selection follows: for the two meetings (and Montgomery's presentation) in St Paul's School see James Holland: " Normandy '44' (p50); Carlo D' Este: "Eisenhower: Allied Supreme Commander" (p500); Alistair Horne: "The Lonely Leader: Monty 1944-1945 (p100); There are comprehensive descriptions of the proceedings in the third volume of Nigel Hamilton's authorised biography; "Monty the Field Marshal 1942-1944". Likewise the Phase line showing the termination of the Normandy Campaign is a straight cartographical date set out on the OVERLORD campaign maps, which can be easily verified. Regarding the 'diminished opposition' this is just another verifiable fact, but nevertheless some sources: Basil Liddell-Hart "A History of the Second World War" (p522); Alan Chalfont "Montgomery of Alamein" Quote: 'From 15th June to 25th July there were always three times as many tanks facing the British as faced the Americans. Bradley was pleased as this development carried on in early July; he later wrote that "Montgomery had hoodwinked the German by diverting him towards Caen from the Contentin"; again, Hamilton's biography (p588); Richard Lamb "Montgomery in Europe 1944-1945, Success or Failure"? (p142). I could list the number of Panzer units facing the Brits in comparison to those facing the Americans but this reply is getting too long for readability. In conclusion, may I recommend a book by a fine military historian John Buckley, "Monty's Men" which is an excellent re-evaluation of Montgomery as a battlefield commander. Thanks for your interest, best wishes; Grumpy.

@grumpyoldman8661

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 Not sure of your point. You requested the source for my Post describing Montgomery's role as the architect of the battlefield strategy, and I gave you several. You then come back with a Max Hastings quote which is (I suppose) intended to refute my claim about Monty. Firstly, Max Hasting's is a great historian, and I have the book from which you quote, and read it some time ago, but you do realise (of course) that there is an overarching argument for the claim of Monty's greatness in Normandy that is bigger than one aspect of the battle? Monty inherited (but accepted) the push to take Caen on the first day and I think Max Hastings - and I am writing from memory - thought that (in retrospect) it was over-ambitious. No doubt the Anglo-Canadians did hope (had the opportunity beckoned) to break-out, but it didn't and they didn't. The attainment of airfields beyond Caen was a priority, and Monty attempted to bomb his way through, and failed. But his core strategy remained, to keep drawing in (and engaging) those Panzer divisions, giving valuable time to General Bradley. The Germans were formidable opponents but the British strategy worked, the more they (the Germans) counter-attacked the more their casualties mounted until they were drained of manpower and started experiencing desertion, surrender, and apathy, as their General communicated to his superiors. It was a war of attrition in which 21st Army Group prevailed, and ultimately the Allies won. In this battle General Bradley and Montgomery worked as a team, and at that stage the former paid tribute to Montgomery as a 'judicious' commander, and noted the remarkable 'self sacrifice' of the Anglo=Canadian contribution to the battle. What do I think of the American effort? Brilliant! 'Operation Cobra' was a great plan, skilfully executed. But everyone knows the American army was a great fighting force and still is. And let us now bow our heads to the brave US servicemen tragically fallen in Kabul; heroes all. Again Americans and Brits fighting in the same cause. May it long be so. That's my last word, Nick. Best wishes. Grumpy.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 'Source?' Try these: ARTHUR BRYANT TRIUMPH IN THE WEST 1943-46 COLLINS, ST JAMES’S PLACE, LONDON 1959 P189/190/191 " May 15th. Went straight from home to St. Paul's School to attend Eisenhower's final run-over plans for cross-Channel operations. The King, P.M., Smuts and all Chiefs of Staff were present. The main impression I gathered was that Eisenhower was no real director of thought, plans, energy or direction. Just a co-ordinator, a good mixer, a champion of inter-Allied co-operation, and in those respects few can hold the candle to him. But is that enough? Or can we not find all qualities of a commander in one man? May be I am getting too hard to please, but I doubt it." Monty made excellent speech. Bertie Ramsay in-different and overwhelmed by all his own difficulties. Spaatz read every word. Bert Harris told us how well he might have won the war if it had not been for the handicap imposed by the existence of the two other Services. Leigh-Mallory gave very clear description. Sholto Douglas seemed disappointed at the smallness of his task, and so was I. Then Humfrey Gale and Graham on Administration, followed by Grasset on Civil Controls of France. A useful run-through. The King made a few well-chosen remarks. After lunch he presented the C.B. to Bradley and two other decorations." " Back to War Office and finished up with Monty dining quietly with me. He was in very good form and bearing his reponsibilities well." ' If I was asked to review the opinion I expressed that evening of Eisenhower, I should, in the light of all later experience, repeat every word of it. A past-master in the handling of allies, entirely impartial and consequently trusted by all. A charming personality and good co-ordinator. But no real commander. I have seen many similar reviews of impending operations, and especially those run by Monty. Ike might have been a showman calling on various actors to perform their various turns, but he was not the commander of the show who controlled and directed all the actors. A very different performance from Monty's show a few days previously. WINSTON S CHURCHILL. THE SECOND WORLD WAR. CASSELL & CO LTD REVISED EDITION NOVEMBER 1950. VOLUME V CLOSING THE RING Page 542 On Monday, May 15, three weeks before D-Day, we held a final conference in London at Montgomery’s Headquarters in St. Paul’s School. The King, Field-Marshal Smuts, the British Chiefs of Staff, the Commanders of the expedition, and many of their principal Staff officers were present. On the stage was a map of the Normandy beaches and the immediate hinterland, set at a slope so that the audience could see it clearly, and so constructed that the high officers explaining the plan of operations could walk about and point out the landmarks. Page 543 Montgomery then took the stage and made an impressive speech. He was followed by several Naval, Army, and Air Commanders, and also by the Principal Administrative Officer, who dwelt upon the elaborate preparations that had been made for the administration of the force when it got ashore. MONTY MASTER OF THE BATTLEFIELD 1942-44 NIGEL HAMILTON HAMISH HAMILTON LONDON 1983 P 588/589 As in April, Monty ran through the tasks of the four armies, as well as those of the commandos and airborne troops. Turning to the wall maps he gave his strategic intentions for 'the development of Operations up to D + 90', outlining again the manner in which the British and Canadians would 'contain the maximum enemy forces facing the eastern flank of the bridgehead' while the American forces, 'once through the difficult bocage country' were to 'thrust rapidly towards Rennes', seal off the Brittany peninsula, and wheel round towards Paris and the Seine, pivoting on the right flank of the British Second Army. As Bradley recalled, 'the British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we were to make our break on the long roundabout road toward Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride, this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for while we tramped around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was toward Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded.’ This strategic vision of the Normandy campaign filled the assembled audience with a sense of pride and anticipation, as it had Monty’s own Chief of Intelligence when Monty first laid down his post-D-1 strategy soon after changing the COSSAC plan. As the American Official Historian noted after an interview with Brigadier Williams in 1947: Thinks as early as January or February 1944 there is this idea of a swing from the American side towards the Seine. Remembers a map showing line out from Caen running South East and a line up the Cotentin and two lines direct down south of the Cotentin and one down and around the corner and one straight down to cut the neck of the Brittany Peninsula and one straight line down inside the Loire. 'After Cherbourg Peninsula (Monty never said Cotentin) cleaned up we shall be formed up the same way. I [Williams] plotted this on my own map. Felt an immense thrill.' Monty stepped down. 'It went off superbly, I thought, on that occasion,' his Military Assistant, Colonel Dawnay, later recalled. `Monty was at his best. He was a supremely confident man-it was astonishing how confident he was. ' In a letter of 16.5.44 the American Deputy Theater Commander, General John Lee, wrote [To Montgomery]: 'Your clear and convincing estimate of the situation at St Paul's yesterday would merit in West Point language "a cold max".

@terrysmith9362

2 жыл бұрын

Nick Danger I think you lost the argument

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Could you imagine being a German commander going up against a British army commanded by Montgomery? It would be like are you kidding me? You want to fight me? The Germans 🇩🇪 were laughing hysterically! History has shown that the British fighting force is imbedded with cowardice and ineptitude. Montgomery was as incompetent as any commander in history and incapable of mustering any kind of intelligent assault. The British were quite good at withdrawal and quick to surrender. Germany 🇩🇪 knew it was to be an easy task with few casualties and many prisoners when facing an allied force commanded by Ole Monty. Many German officers were promoted and highly decorated due to Montgomery’s lack of military capabilities! A United States army full of 5 year olds and commanded by the worst of their commanders would have been more problematic and much more successful than anything the British could muster against the Germans 🇩🇪. Facts are that the British and Montgomery were just in the way when it came to winning the war in Europa! Montgomery was lucky that Eisenhower even allowed him to lap up America’s battle scraps after The United States rolled through victory after victory on their way to Berlin. I couldn’t imagine the humiliation Montgomery and the British army felt watching a real army at work, but they were definitely used to disgrace, shame and embarrassment. All the way from Dunkirk to the Philippines, to North Africa, to the Netherlands, it was always a defeat and a retreat. The only minuscule amount of success came in North Africa after The United States Army joined in and Rommel decided to leave North Africa, due to only having a few tanks left and not being given any reinforcements by Hitler, to save his men to fight another day. Montgomery still almost managed to lose to Rommel in Tunisia and would have lost had it not been for an endless supply of equipment and men and the assistance of The United States military against a German army that would not be reinforced. A very small group of German soldiers and commanders showed their superiority by holding off Montgomery until the few remaining Germans could be evacuated. Another humiliation for Montgomery and the British army. Churchill claimed it victory though, but once again the British armies ineptness was exposed when they entered Italy and lost thousands of soldiers against a few German paratroopers protecting Monte Cassino. The list is endless and no victories for the British and Montgomery. You’re welcome for the education and the truth behind the British and Montgomery’s capabilities during World War 2. Cheers!

Britian has produced GOOD Generals, Military commanders. Bernard Montgomery, Sir Arthur Wellesley 1st Duke of Wellington, Admiral Horatio Nelson. Damn GOOD Military COMMANDERS.

@richardelliott9511

2 жыл бұрын

Horatio Hornblower!

@saadkhan1128

Жыл бұрын

Richard shapre

@saadkhan1128

Жыл бұрын

Sharpe*

“Discipline strengthens the mind so that it becomes impervious to the corroding influence of fear” Bernard Law Montgomery

@neilsunn

2 жыл бұрын

He was a failure.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 How many world wars have you fought in?..

@strongwest

2 жыл бұрын

@@neilsunn you seem to be the toughest commander living!

@CentralAftermath

2 жыл бұрын

@@neilsunn lmao, no he was not.

@BrianFrancisHeffron-1776

2 жыл бұрын

Montgomery was an awful leader. The worst. In Eisenhower's opinion, he was a hindrance to the progress of the war.

Excellent video ! Thank you !

They did not use Montys Market Garden plan which was side lined

Superb video as usual keep them up

How many needless deaths was he responsible for in Operation Market and Operation Garden.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Why do you say needless?..

@stephenburke5967

3 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 WHAT.Firstly all deaths in war are needless but Operation Market designed and insisted by Montgomery against the advice of other senior planners to drop paratroopers 8 miles from their objective of Arnhem into a seriously miscalculated enemy strength was the first disaster.Montgomery was told that there wasn't enough aircraft to deploy for a surprise all at once attack rather than the three days it took to deploy the paratroopers as many Germans said after the war"it was a Turkey shoot as they fell from the sky".Monty knew the weather would hamper supplies, General Urquhart had warned planners that the dense forests around their landing zones would hamper their communications"which it did dramatically". The road networks approaching their bridge objectives were far to narrow for quick decisive advance and this planning mistake was alone unforgiving of Montgomery. Intelligence told the planners that two Panzer divisions were in the area around Arnhem but completely ignored this crucial information almost certainly sending the advancing Poles/British troops to their needless graves.This complete operational disaster insisted on by Montgomery cost the needless deaths of those extremely brave men and indeed it prolonged the war and caused further needless deaths in the theatre of war and infact caused the Russians to advance first into Berlin and the problems that caused in later years with needless deaths and hardship from the segregation of Berlin until the fall of the Wall in November 9th 1989.I must add the Dutch underground pleaded with London for weeks prior to Market Garden to blanket bomb the dense forests around Arnhem, Nijmegan and Lent as the Germans had put a corden around the forests with no civilian access therefore no casualties.The Dutch underground had pinpointed these areas as the hiding areas of the two Panzer divisions that London were informed about but this was ignored.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@stephenburke5967 Wall to wall rubbish. The ‘Market’ plan that covered how, when and where the airborne forces were to be landed, and how they fought was the responsibility of the commander of the First Allied Airborne Army, the US General Brereton. UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II The European Theater of Operations THE SIEGFRIED LINE CAMPAIGN By Charles B. MacDonald CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 1993 P127 ‘The first major planning conference -on Operation MARKET convened in England late on 10 September, only a few hours after General Eisenhower in a meeting with Montgomery at Brussels had given his approval.’ ‘Once the ground troops overran the airborne divisions, command was to pass to the 30 British Corps. Responsibility for the complex troop carrier role fell to the commander of the IX Troop Carrier Command, General Williams.’ P132 ‘’Naturally anxious that all their strength arrive on D-Day, the division commanders asked that the planes fly more than one mission the first day. They pointed to the importance of bringing all troops into the corridor before the enemy could reinforce his antiaircraft defenses or launch an organized ground assault.’ ‘Although it meant taking a chance on enemy reaction and on the weather, General Brereton sided with the troop carrier commanders. He decided on one lift per day.’ As to whether Montgomery had any say in Brereton’s plan, the evidence is clear: CHESTER WILMOT THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE WM. COLLINS, SONS AND CO LTD. 1954 CHAPTER XXVII. THE LOST OPPORTUNITY P 588 The Guards, breaking out along one road, met strong opposition nearly all the way to Eindhoven, and yet they drove their armour through these twelve bitterly contested miles in twenty-four hours. When they reached the southern end of the ‘airborne corridor’ on the evening of D plus 1, they were halted for the night by the blown bridge at Zon. This bridge might have been captured intact if the 101st Division had agreed to Montgomery's proposal that it should drop paratroops on either side of the objective, as was done at Grave. THE GUNS AT LAST LIGHT THE WAR IN WESTERN EUROPE, 1944-1945 Rick Atkinson LITTLE BROWN 2013. This paperback edition published in 2013. P 265 ‘General Brereton’s troop carrier commanders had insisted that only a single mission fly on Sunday; a second sortie would ostensibly exhaust air and ground crews and leave insufficient time to service and reload the planes (although double missions over the same distance had been flown from Italy in DRAGOON the previous month). Pleas by airborne commanders and by an emissary from Montgomery to Brereton’s headquarters failed to reverse the decision, despite analysis that showed transporting the entire combat force at a deliberate rate could take up to four days.’ ‘General Urquhart had warned planners that the dense forests around their landing zones would hamper their communications"which it did dramatically".’ Your words. Where is this on record? ‘I must add the Dutch underground pleaded with London for weeks prior to Market Garden to blanket bomb the dense forests around Arnhem, Nijmegan and Lent as the Germans had put a corden around the forests with no civilian access therefore no casualties.’ I never heard of it. Where is this on record? ‘The Dutch underground had pinpointed these areas as the hiding areas of the two Panzer divisions that London were informed about but this was ignored.’ All communications purporting to come from the Dutch Underground at that time were routinely disregarded due to the German ‘Enlandspiel’ penetration of the Dutch Underground. Market Garden was no different to any other situation at that time in that regard. ‘it prolonged the war and caused further needless deaths in the theatre of war and infact caused the Russians to advance first into Berlin and the problems that caused in later years with needless deaths and hardship from the segregation of Berlin until the fall of the Wall in November 9th 1989.’ Your words. How could Market Garden have prolonged the war? It was no bigger than a number of other allied operations at that time, none of which succeeded. If anyone caused the Russians to be in Berlin first, it was Eisenhower, with his broad front policy, which stopped the allied advance, leaving Churchill and Roosevelt with no cards to play at the Yalta Conference, and later, Eisenhower’s unilateral decision to contact Stalin to tell him that Western forces would not attempt to reach Berlin. ‘Intelligence told the planners that two Panzer divisions were in the area around Arnhem’ Your words A SHAEF Intelligence Summary week ending September 4th 1944 stated that the Germans facing British 2nd Army was "no longer a cohesive force but a number of fugitive battlegroups, disorganised and even demoralised, short of equipment and arms". The 1st Para Brigade Intelligence Summary No 1 CLEARLY states that: "..the area might contain 15,000 enemy troops of which perhaps 8,000 would be concentrated in Arnhem. A reported concentration of 10,000 troops SW of Zwolle on 1st September may represent a battle scarred Panzer Division or two reforming" Signed W A Taylor, Capt, IO, 1 Parachute Brigade, dated 13th September 1944. THE GUNS AT LAST LIGHT THE WAR IN WESTERN EUROPE, 1944-1945 Rick Atkinson LITTLE BROWN 2013. P260 ‘A SHAEF intelligence summary issued September 16 reported that “the enemy has now suffered , in the West alone, losses in men and equipment that can never be repaired in this war….No force can, then, be built up in the West sufficient for a counteroffensive or even a successful defensive.” German strength facing the 100,000-man XXX Corps directly across the Dutch border was estimated at six infantry battalions backed by twenty armored vehicles and a dozen field guns; scant enemy activity had been detected in the last two days.’ P263 ‘Guessing which Germans would be fought proved vexing beyond all other vexations. Radio traffic showed that Model’s Army Group B headquarters had shifted to Oosterbeek, outside Arnhem. Other intelligence suggested that enemy reinforcements of river and canal defenses, but with troops considered “low category”; some improvised Luftwaffe ground units were apparently so rudimentary that they lacked field kitchens. Ultra decrypt XL9188 in early September revealed that various battered units from Normandy had been ordered to Western Holland to refit, and subsequent intercepts indicated that this gaggle included II SS Panzer Corps. Not until September 15 had the SHAEF high command taken note that the corps’ two divisions, the 9th and 10th SS Panzer, seemed to laagered near Arnhem. Together they had suffered nine thousand casualties at Caen, at Falaise, and in the retreat across France; they had also lost much of their armor, including 120 tanks on August 19 alone. But whether the divisions were still eviscerated , where they were headed, or precisely where they were now located remained opaque.’ ‘Monty knew the weather would hamper supplies’ Your words. Nope. Market Garden was launched on the basis of a weather report on the afternoon of the 16th September, 1944, which predicted four days of good weather. ‘The road networks approaching their bridge objectives were far to narrow for quick decisive advance and this planning mistake was alone unforgiving of Montgomery.’ But XXX Corps advanced 50 miles in two days (with 12 hours lost due to the Bridge at Son being blown up), arriving at Nijmegen at the start of the third day, only to find that that the US 82nd Airborne Division had failed to capture Nijmegen Bridge.

@yogotti9496

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 you just believe everything don’t you? In your eyes the British could do no wrong. Excuse after excuse for everything the British did wrong. OPEN YOUR EYES. Think for yourself. Don’t you understand that these people lie in books? We can only go off Stats and facts. Man it’s sickening how dead and blind you are. Just swallow any British military propaganda you can.

@terrysmith9362

2 жыл бұрын

Yo Gotti You obviously prefer the Hollywood version of history

Operation Market Garden, that took all of 24 hours to come up with, was the Dutch War college final exam question. His solution was the F ANSWER on that exam and we can see the miserable results of that attack.

@thevillaaston7811

8 ай бұрын

What does the Dutch War college final exam question state?

@kennethquinnies6023

8 ай бұрын

Pretty much the situation that Monty was facing and him choosing to go straight down one highway was the F answer@@thevillaaston7811

@thevillaaston7811

8 ай бұрын

@@kennethquinnies6023 What situation? That Parachute Divisions would be landed at three points in front of the advancing troops? That there would be massive air-cover? That the enemy would consist of scattered elements of shattered formations? Also that there was an urgent need to stop rocket attacks on civillians? If you don't know, just state that you dont know.

@lyndoncmp5751

3 ай бұрын

Miserable result? Taking 100km of German held ground in just 3 days and liberating hundreds of thousands of Dutch civilians including Eindhoven and Nijmegen was miserable? Market Garden was actually the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period.

I always found this guy to be very interesting thank you for the detailed video

Back in the late 1980s as a teenager I was into history and I was also reading all types of books from the library. I borrowed the book Bernard Montgomery The Memoirs or The Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery. It was a quite a large book. However it was a fanstastic read a real page turner.

Love the old black and white video footage in this documentary, really brings it to life

Too nice channel in describing famous historic, scientific, literature personalities characters and their struggles in their lives and their activities ...thanks for sending

A marvelous job !! He certainly overcame a lot of challenges.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Zaynab, It was Montgomery who saved others, particularly the Americans (Bulge, Kasserine).

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Highly inaccurate depiction of actual events written by the victors, The United States of America supplied the British army. Rommel had about 10 tanks left and Hitler refused to reinforce him! A 5 year old could have done far better than Montgomery with the endless supply of equipment and men at his disposal! And to be more concise an army of 5 year old Americans led by the worst American commanders could have surpassed any victory dreamed capable by a British army. British armies and commanders are notoriously known as cowards and incompetent at best! Montgomery was the laughing stalk of all military commanders during World War 2! Germany 🇩🇪 always had a mighty chuckle when they knew Ole Monty was about to attack. Montgomery almost managed to lose the battle in North Africa despite the outrageous advantages he had against an obviously superior German command and superior infantry. Rommel simply knew it was pointless and decided that getting his men out of there was the best option without reinforcements! If Montgomery was so awesome, don’t you think he would have been able to capture Rommel? Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on what actually occurred with the inept Montgomery and World War 2 before embarrassing yourself with inaccuracies and falsifications of actual events! Cheers from us that know!

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Could you imagine being a German commander going up against a British army commanded by Montgomery? It would be like are you kidding me? You want to fight me? The Germans 🇩🇪 were laughing hysterically! History has shown that the British fighting force is imbedded with cowardice and ineptitude. Montgomery was as incompetent as any commander in history and incapable of mustering any kind of intelligent assault. The British were quite good at withdrawal and quick to surrender. Germany 🇩🇪 knew it was to be an easy task with few casualties and many prisoners when facing an allied force commanded by Ole Monty. Many German officers were promoted and highly decorated due to Montgomery’s lack of military capabilities! A United States army full of 5 year olds and commanded by the worst of their commanders would have been more problematic and much more successful than anything the British could muster against the Germans 🇩🇪. Facts are that the British and Montgomery were just in the way when it came to winning the war in Europa! Montgomery was lucky that Eisenhower even allowed him to lap up America’s battle scraps after The United States rolled through victory after victory on their way to Berlin. I couldn’t imagine the humiliation Montgomery and the British army felt watching a real army at work, but they were definitely used to disgrace, shame and embarrassment. All the way from Dunkirk to the Philippines, to North Africa, to the Netherlands, it was always a defeat and a retreat. The only minuscule amount of success came in North Africa after The United States Army joined in and Rommel decided to leave North Africa, due to only having a few tanks left and not being given any reinforcements by Hitler, to save his men to fight another day. Montgomery still almost managed to lose to Rommel in Tunisia and would have lost had it not been for an endless supply of equipment and men and the assistance of The United States military against a German army that would not be reinforced. A very small group of German soldiers and commanders showed their superiority by holding off Montgomery until the few remaining Germans could be evacuated. Another humiliation for Montgomery and the British army. Churchill claimed it victory though, but once again the British armies ineptness was exposed when they entered Italy and lost thousands of soldiers against a few German paratroopers protecting Monte Cassino. The list is endless and no victories for the British and Montgomery. You’re welcome for the education and the truth behind the British and Montgomery’s capabilities during World War 2. Cheers!

@lyndoncmp5751

Жыл бұрын

Gary You've just written the most idiotic post I've ever read. Troll.

@peterwhitaker4038

Жыл бұрын

@@garyholschuh8811 perhaps the Americans wished they had someone like Monty in Vietnam then? saving lives but progressing without surrender

I love Monty. God bless our British Allies

Ah, good timing, gonna listen to this as I go to sleep 💤

@PeopleProfiles

3 жыл бұрын

We're not sure if that's a good or bad thing lol!

@hassanabdikarimmohamed2505

3 жыл бұрын

@@PeopleProfiles its a good thing haha, your narrative style is exquisite 👌

Another excellent episode. Thankyou.

Thanks for the presentation. Very informative.

Market Garden was a Montgomery failure.

A more accurate title would be: "Bernard Montgomery - Mastermind of El Alamein and Normandy".

@btakesa

2 жыл бұрын

What rubbish

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 Think how much better things would have gone in Normandy if Eisenhower had devised the plan. What with his zero personal combat experience, his efforts in North Africa against the mighty Vichy French, and his masterstroke in the invasion of Italy where he brilliantly spread allied forces over a three hundred mile area.

Welp. I know what I'll be doing for the next hour.

One example of Monty's abrasiveness to his superiors. Bedell Smith, Eisenhower's deputy, had promised Monty that Eisehower would give him anything he wanted if the Tunisian city of Sfax could be taken by a certain date. Monty said he'd like a personal aircraft. After taking the city of Sfax Monty immediately sent a signal to Eisenhower asking/demanding his plane. Eisenhower did not like the signal but thought he had to honour his deputy's pledge so Monty got his plane - a Boeing B17 & a full American crew!

The Montgomery family name is to be still found in east Donegal to this day.

@linnarozzy2763

3 ай бұрын

Did Bernard Montgomery monty he come to Fiji in 1944to 1945,,

I think that Monty was a superb planner (two extra beaches at Normandy) but a tiresome ass after the invasion. He promised and failed, and then denied making those promises. He so misunderstood his relationship with a completely fed up Eisenhower that only an groveling apology engineered by Monty's aide Freddie de Guingand kept his job. If someone like Field Marshal William Slim had replaced Montgomery say on July 1, 1944 I suggest that the war may have ended earlier.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

David Grandy If someone like Field Marshal William Slim had replaced Montgomery say on July 1, 1944 I suggest that the war may have ended earlier.' How so? What would have been done differently?

@davidgrandy4681

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 Slim was the best English general of WWII. He fought with extremely limited resources in Burma against a larger and better supplied Japanese force and won. I'm making an assumption that had he been the British commander then Monty's failures at Caen, Goodwood and Market Garden would not be repeated. Failures squander resources and with more resources you can do other things. Could the northern Allied armies have crossed the Rhine weeks before Remegan? What would that have meant to the end of the war? This is all unknowable of course, but that's my explanation.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidgrandy4681 What 'failures at Caen and Goodwood?'

@davidgrandy4681

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 Right. They were wonderful successes. They didn't take Caen for weeks, and they got woefully bogged down in Goodwood. Monty would have you believe that he planned it that way but there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Hell he thought that Market Garden was a success.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidgrandy4681 Montgomery undertook to reach the Seine by D+90. He got there by D+78, with 22% fewer than expected casualties. The evidence is clear that he planned to hold the Germans on the allied left, in front of British 2nd Army, while the US forces on the allied right broke out to take Cherbourg and the Cotentin Peninsula. How did the capture, or non capture of Caen affect this? Market Garden freed a fifth of the Dutch population, hindered V2 attacks on Britain, sealed the Scheldt off from German reinforcements, stretched German defences another 50 miles and left the allies well placed to attack the Rhine in the months ahead.

Ok, I already fall in love with this channel 😁 Just one question, do I hear Arch Warhammer doing history, or is it just an illusion based on almost identical voice and prenauciation? 😉

@PeopleProfiles

2 жыл бұрын

His name his Alex Doddy, he does HistoryMarche narration too.

@PsychicalTraumaPL

2 жыл бұрын

@@PeopleProfiles thanks for that, the illusion is almost surreal 😁

I find it amazing that a so many people slate Monty when he's the man that beat Rommel. Also before anyone says he bad superior numbers and supplies, you can say that about any western allied commander throughout the conflict. For some reason gung ho generals always get more credit.

@PeopleProfiles

3 жыл бұрын

Well said sir.

@Adam-zq2mw

3 жыл бұрын

Yes; you are right; many Americans slate Monty and his cautious approach, but Briton didn't have the blood to spare.

@judymac2590

3 жыл бұрын

@@aaropajari7058 better late than never or you might be speaking German!!

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@judymac2590 'you might be speaking German!!' So how was that going to happen?..

@psilvakimo

3 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 You very ignorant of history.

George Patton and Bernard Montgomery pursued fairly extreme and opposing views of strategy. Patton's view is summed up in "chase 'em till they drop". He believed that a general with a superior force should pursue the enemy so ferociously that the enemy never has a chance to regroup and build proper defensive positions. His theory was that under unrelenting pressure a retreating enemy makes mistakes, and the result is a rout. Patton thought the attacker should take risks and grab opportunities to maintain pressure, because ultimately even high casualties will be more than offset by a much shorter successful campaign. Patton's philosophy was criticised by his colleagues, who pointed out that units ordered to closely pursue the enemy often become embroiled in independent actions, and lose contact with flanking units. Such isolated units are then vulnerable to encirclement. They argued that Patton's philosophy fragments the battlefield, making it difficult for a commander to maintain a coherent strategy, and to supply and relieve scattered units that are always fighting or moving. Patton's philosophy thereby leads to exhausted frontline troops with too little ammunition, fuel, food, and water. An intelligent enemy can exploit a commander’s propensity to advance continuously in a running battle, to draw his troops into ambushes and traps. Patton is especially criticised for the disasters at Troina and Monte Cipolla, which many claim to be due to his propensity for military gambling. Patton's philosophy implicitly relies on relatively small units commanded by officers with imagination, initiative, and verve. Montgomery spent much of his career lecturing military theory, and so naturally favoured planning battles in stages, with coherent large-scale movements of units. His basic idea was to force the enemy to react in certain ways, for which his own units would be prepared, and to which they could then respond with decisive moves that had been planned. Montgomery strove to eliminate uncertainty, in the belief that thorough planning and preparation make victory inevitable. His colleagues inevitably criticised him for being so slow and pedantic in his planning, for allowing military opportunities to slip through his fingers, and for granting the enemy time to build formidable defences. It is also felt that Montgomery's penchant for set-piece battles led him to try and fit the unique situations he faced into theoretical templates. Operation Goodwood, launched to capture Caen and break out from the bocage onto the northern French plain, is notorious for the "18th July Death Ride of the British Armoured Divisions". In fact, Montgomery's approach to Caen exemplified much that is wrong with his philosophy, which implicitly relies on large units doing what they have been ordered, at the correct time and place. If small units with significant freedom of command had surrounded Caen by infiltrating its outskirts, and then fought towards the centre, (with no bombing), opportunities would probably have opened up that would have made the campaign quicker and more successful. Montgomery was very heavily criticised for the Caen road block, and this goaded him into "Operation Market Garden", which was highly out of character for him in its daring and risk in the face of great uncertainties. It was a deeply flawed operation, almost certainly conceived by Montgomery to prove that he had the same flair as Patton. The operation's reliance on units achieving goals at set times, however, was classical Montgomery. The plan was everything and it was inflexible. When the enemy didn't cooperate, not only was the operation doomed, but it left the Allies thinly strung out on a very long frontier with the Germans, one that they could then exploit in the Ardennes Offensive, (Battle of the Bulge). One can argue that Patton's Third Army only managed to cross the Rhine at Remagen by pure luck, but was it not Patton's philosophy that led to his men being in the right place at the right time? The unplanned crossing of the bridge at Remagen cost very little compared with the huge and meticulously planned Operation Market Garden, which went so terribly wrong! Today, military colleges believe that there are times and places when Patton's philosophy is best, and when Montgomery's is best, and that circumstances may change very rapidly from favouring one approach, to the other. Montgomery's approach at Second El Alamein was precisely what was required by a "strait-jacketed" military situation, whereas Patton's free-for-all chase up the Rhone Valley and hook around Switzerland, and across the Rhine near Mainz, was precisely what was required under those circumstances. A truly great military commander knows when to play loose and fast, and when to keep things tight, without the benefit of glorious hindsight! While Dwight Eisenhower's prowess as a military leader is widely recognised, unhappily that of Sir Alan Brooke, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, is not. In book after book, it is clear that Sir Alan Brooke was the key leader and strategist of the British Imperial Forces, and more often than not had to fight Churchill's hare-brained schemes while dealing with extremely egocentric generals. In fact, Britain may owe more to Sir Alan Brooke than to anyone else for success during WW2, (in spite of Churchill's meddling!) The other great hero, oddly enough, is none other than the tragically maligned Sir Neville Chamberlain, repeatedly and viciously attacked for the policy of appeasement. Chamberlain woke up to the Nazi menace and lobbied for defence spending long before Churchill, and it is thanks to Chamberlain that Britain did not become involved in a war before it was capable of defending itself, and was in fact capable when war broke out. I wonder how many people know that immediately after giving his notorious "Peace in our time" speech for the benefit of the Germans, Chamberlain immediately ordered many measures to prepare Britain for war?!

@11nytram11

3 жыл бұрын

"...When the enemy didn't cooperate, not only was the operation doomed, but it left the Allies thinly strung out on a very long frontier with the Germans, one that they could then exploit in the Ardennes Offensive, (Battle of the Bulge)..." I'm sorry? You're blaming MARKET GARDEN for the Ardennes Offensive? The Allies being "thinly strung out on a very long frontier" was the result of Eisenhower's Broad Front strategy. It stretched the Allied Armies across a 340 mile front. You cant blame the failure of MARKET GARDEN for a strategy Eisenhower had been employing since the end of OVERLORD. And, conviently, Bradley splitting his Army Group either side of a region that had seen two major German offsives in 20th Century, and committing his two main Armies into multiple month battles which accomplished next to nothing, with no cooperation between the two, and cost tens of thousands of casulties had nothing to do with it?

@etangdescygnes

3 жыл бұрын

@@11nytram11 Of course, history becomes ever more complex the deeper one studies it. Eisenhower is indeed criticised for the "Broad Front Strategy". The sources I have read state that Eisenhower found it difficult to get his leading generals to work together, and in particular Bradley and Patton believed Montgomery had failed at Caen, and his plan to concentrate German armour on the Borguébus Ridge and east of the Dives floodplain was a post-hoc invention to cover his failure. (Many people who have read detailed accounts of the Caen campaign think Montgomery could, at the least, have done better. Trew and Badsey (2014) studied Operation Goodwood. They concluded that the Allies lost 197 tanks on 18 July, 99 on 19 July, and 18 on 20 July, total: 314. Major Julius Neave, who fought during Goodwood, wrote in his diary that the 11th Armoured Division lost ⅔ of its tanks in Operation Goodwood, which he considered “monstrous”. This Allied counterpart to the Falaise Pocket is much overlooked!) The standard "tale" is that following Caen, Montgomery had zero street cred with American generals, and was desperate to vindicate himself. All Eisenhower's generals were strong, egocentric personalities, and Eisenhower was also under huge political pressure to "keep things sweet." The Broad Front Strategy broke the classical "schwerpunkt" rule of offensives, but it was inevitable that the liberation of France would lead to a long front from Switzerland, north to the Ardennes. Operation Market Garden was defective in several key respects. It extended the already "Broad Front" another 60 miles, the casualties amounted to a division's worth of men, for the most part truly top notch soldiers, and it saw a significant amount of armour destroyed. It delayed the final assault on Germany. The loss of so many good fighting men and much materiel, plus the 60 mile extension of the front, (which still had to be supplied from distant Channel ports), cannot be viewed positively, and was certainly considered by the Germans when planning their Ardennes offensive. Would Eisenhower have gone with the "Broad Front" strategy had he had selfless generals who cooperated willingly, and the Caen roadblock had never occurred? What would Patton have done at Caen, and especially Bradley?!

@11nytram11

3 жыл бұрын

@@etangdescygnes Bradley described the action around Caen as the "sacrifical" one for British pride because they were drawing the bulk of German reinforcements onto them and preventing them from getting to the Americans, and this would see the Americans liberate vast areas of France while the British got bogged down in the less glamorous but vital work of tying the Germans down into battle. Much certainly went wrong tactically with the battles around Caen, but it was always expected that the Germans would funnel their reinforcements into the British/Commonwealth sector and it was always planned that the American would turn the German flank and drive them beyond the Seine - Patton's 3rd Army was activated only after Operation COBRA because he was given the task of exploiting the breakout. Montgomery suggested his "Narrow Front" strategy to be a 40 division advance to liberate Antwerp then take the Rhur Industrial Center which would effectively end the German's ability to wage war. He felt this was the correct way to exploit the victory of OVERLORD and legitimately offered to serve under Bradley to get it done. Bradley and Patton suggested an alternative "Narrow Front" where by the 21st Army Group would be relegated to mopping up operation designed to liberate costal port to ease logistics while 12th Army Group pushed on through the Saar region, entered the Rhur from the South then pushed on to Berlin. Eisenhower favoured the "Broad Front" strategy because he believed the Germans completely defeated after OVERLORD and wanted to press all along the front to prevent them from having any chance to recover. He also though it would be a more managable logistical task to keep the British/Commonwealth and American Army Groups seperate to prevent them from stepping on each other toes. The consequence was that he pleased none of his subordinates and stretched his front to such an extent that no one Army Group was strong enough to decisively defeat the Germans in their sector once they reached the Sigfried Line, because they didn't have the manpower or material superiority to do it.

@etangdescygnes

3 жыл бұрын

@@11nytram11 I really do NOT have the time for this! Oh well... I actually agree. Eisenhower was a fool to have allowed Montgomery to stretch the front (and supply lines) another 60 miles further north, and should have ordered a direct joint British-American strike south of the Ruhr, with some British units being instructed to curl back around the Ruhr. Market Garden was a major and costly operation to get to Arnhem, even before invading Germany. If you are going to mount an operation as big as Market Garden, why not an eastward strike south of the Ruhr? The Commander of XXX Corps, Horrocks, stated that his failure to drive his armoured vehicles one day further north from Antwerp to seal off Zeeland was a terrible mistake, which he bitterly regretted. He had the resources to do so. Following his failure, Montgomery should immediately have prioritised the containment and elimination of the German forces in Zeeland and the Scheldt Estuary, to open the port and prevent a later “stab in the back”. (This operation only began on 2 October 1944, after Market Garden, by which point many German troops had escaped from Zeeland, not only to sabotage Market Garden, but also to bolster forces in the Reich.) In itself, Market Garden was fatally flawed. And now Caen! It is worth reading the last three paragraphs on p.142 of Antony Beevor’s “D-Day, The Battle for Normandy”, Penguin Books, 2010. Montgomery formally set the British 3rd Infantry Division the objective of seizing Caen on D-Day, but “failed to put in place the equipment and organization of his forces to carry out such a daring stroke.” Montgomery officially changed the goal from breakout to that of pinning down German armour in an order written and issued on 15 July 1944, 39 days after D-Day, and three days before Operation Goodwood began at 5:30 a.m. on 18 July. Montgomery’s commanders confirmed this. The sacrificial “pinning down” plan was created by Montgomery because Plan A had failed. For seven weeks the American generals had openly queried the British failure to capture Caen, as planned. (The failure of the Canadians to advance rapidly to capture Carpiquet Airfield is also on the record - another failure that cost many lives.) Caen was first devastated by bombing just before D-Day. This was a mistake. Operation Goodwood (18-21 July) required the massing of tanks, armoured troop carriers, and infantry in a semi-circular area around the Orne Estuary, in view of German observers perched on the factory chimneys of Caen’s industrial area of Colombelles, north-east of the town. Allied sappers spent days clearing paths through their own minefields, marking the corridors with tapes. Goodwood opened with a huge bombardment of known German armour and gun positions, primarily on the east-west Borguébus Ridge just south of Caen, and on higher ground to the east of the flat, shallow valley between the Ornes and Dives, along which the British advance was to occur. The bombardment was fairly effective, but given the channelled nature of the British advance and the advantageous German positions, just a few surviving tanks and guns could easily pick off the British vehicles. The bombardment stunned thousands of German infantrymen between the Orne and Dives. Advancing British troops told them to hike north to the beach, where they blocked the paths cleared through the minefields. This had not been foreseen. The surrendering men blocked the corridors, delaying British armour long enough for surviving German gunners to regroup and start their turkey shoot. Goodwood ultimately ground to a literal and costly dead end. Montgomery ever after claimed that he had met his (new) objective of “pinning down German armour”, albeit that the Allies lost 314 tanks (alone), of which 130 were beyond repair (Trew and Badsey, 2014), while one Allied and one German officer both counted 75 destroyed German tanks and self-propelled guns, (Beevor, 2010). Were Caen and Goodwood a success, as Montgomery claimed, or were they just a bloody mess? Was so much military and civilian "sacrifice" (?!) truly necessary to pin down the Germans? Was there an alternative? Much earlier, Canadian infantry had penetrated and captured the relatively intact districts of Caen to the west of the Orne, with little supporting armour. In the light of this, it has been stated that the obliteration of Caen on Montgomery’s orders, and Operation Goodwood, were mistakes. It has been suggested that it would have been wiser to send infantry units skirting around the eastern edges of Colombelles and Caen in predawn twilight, where they would have been far from the German guns ranged along the Dives, would have found cover, and could have turned westwards to infiltrate Colombelles and Caen in many separate places as the sun rose behind their backs. It would have been the job of the armour and artillery to then similarly skirt along the eastern edge of the built-up areas, to screen the city from German attacks across the plain between the Orne and Dives. Once secured, Caen would have provided a route to hook around the western end of the Borguébus Ridge, and supplies could have been brought from the beaches by both lorries and boats, (along the Orne). Such an operation probably had a much greater chance of success, and would have spared many civilian lives and much destruction of property. There is no reason to think that it would not also have kept the Germans pinned in place. Montgomery did well at Second El Alamein, but I think his leadership in Normandy, Zeeland, and Market Garden was bad. And yes, Eisenhower must take the ultimate responsibility for Montgomery’s bungling, as the SCAEF!

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

William Swan ‘Montgomery spent much of his career lecturing military theory’ Montgomery fought with distinction in the First World War, being wounded twice and being awarded the DSO. Montgomery performed with distinction in France in 1940, in trying circumstances, with his superbly trained division closing the gap on the allied left after the Belgian capitulation, and then bringing his division home almost intact. By the time that Bradley, Devers and Eisenhower eventually got into the war, Montgomery had already forgotten more about fighting wars than the three of them collectively were ever going to know. Operation Goodwood was launched because delays in the US advance to the west, in order to keep German forces away from the US troops. Two thirds of the tanks supposedly knocked out at Goodwood were operational again within days. ‘"Operation Market Garden", which was highly out of character for him in its daring and risk in the face of great uncertainties. It was a deeply flawed operation, almost certainly conceived by Montgomery to prove that he had the same flair as Patton.’ What did Montgomery have to prove in regard to Patton? Montgomery was an army group commander in a different army. Paton had pratted himself by hitting Sicilian peasants and some of his own troops. The V2 attacks on Britain alone justified Market Garden. The Remagen bridge was captured by Hodges, not Patton. ‘it is thanks to Chamberlain that Britain did not become involved in a war before it was capable of defending itself, and was in fact capable when war broke out. I wonder how many people know that immediately after giving his notorious "Peace in our time" speech for the benefit of the Germans, Chamberlain immediately ordered many measures to prepare Britain for war?!’ Hardly, when Chamberlain went the Munich conference, Britain had already, but far too late, begun to rearm. Before Chamberlain went to Munich the service chiefs told him that Britain could not be ready for a general war before 1941. When Chamberlain left office in 1940, there were still one million people unemployed in Britain.

Alamein was mostly enabled by the codebreakers of Bletchley, so that Monty was able to eavesdrop on Rommel's orders, just as though he was sitting in the same tent. The victory saved Churchill's political life, so the government was ordered to invent the legend of Montgomery.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Wall to wall rubbish. Alamein was won by astute Generalship at Alam el Halfa, followed by a thorough top-to-bottom reorganisation of the Eighth Army - by Montgomery. 'the government was ordered to invent the legend of Montgomery.' Absolutely not. The whole of government messages and propaganda was to emphasize the contribution of ordinary people rather than war leaders. Montgomery won so he gained attenttion. If you win battles you get noticed.

@Jonathanbegg

3 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 The war propaganda also celebrated the generals, otherwise the chain of command would have been at risk. It is always disillusioning when the propaganda eventually has to be peeled away to reveal the truth, however undignified - as with Bomber Command. Monty had just one talent, but he had it in great measure. He was the best sports team coach anyone had seen, and he used this to put fresh heart into the demoralised troops he commanded. The Alamein strategy was not his. It was Auchinleck's. I would agree about Alam Halfa, however. He was probably right to stay put and keep his army intact that time, though people criticised him for excessive caution (which may be why he was stung into taking a mad risk at Arnhem, right out of character.)

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@Jonathanbegg 'The Alamein strategy was not his. It was Auchinleck's.' Not really... Read this: THE MEMOIRS OF FIELD-MARSHAL EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS CASSELL, LONDON 1962 P22 ‘Recently there has been discussion whether or not General Montgomery ‘adopted’ as his own the plan evolved by his predecessor for the action that was shortly to be fought - actually within a little more than a fortnight of his taking over command - in defence of the Alamein position. I cannot conceive that General Montgomery is likely to have been interested in other people’s ideas on how to run the desert war; and in my own conversation with General Auchinleck, before taking over command, there was certainly no hint of a defensive plan that at all resembled the pattern of the battle of Alam Halfa as it was actually fought. …as I have already indicated, the actual pattern of the battle was exclusively Montgomery’s.’ Watch this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/X4Wgps2jqta_hps.html&ab_channel=PatrickRushton 15 mins, 55 seconds. As for Arnhem...the V2 attacks on Britain alone justified the attempt. As for propaganda: The whole thrust of government propaganda, the works of filmmakers and of writers was to emphasize the collective effort and the deeds of the man in the street rather than the deeds of generals or politicians. Posters were all about ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘together’. The films people watched were: ‘Millions like Us’, ‘The Way Ahead’, ‘Went the Day Well’, The Foreman Went to France’. The BBC chipped in with output such as ‘Workers Playtime’ JB Priestly, and so on, and so on, and so on. Montgomery gained attention because he won battles.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 How ridiculous can this get? Even Auchinleck said that Montgomery did not use Auchinleck's plan.

@steveperreira5850

2 жыл бұрын

It was a huge advantage Knowing so much of what the enemy is going to do, but he is blind to your intentions. You can even say a rather ordinary mind could win under those skewed circumstances, hence the myth of the great general Montgomery.

I love your channel!! Can we get a video of Napoleon?

@paulchristensen7528

2 жыл бұрын

The movie starring Rod Steiger is the best one.

@jugjugette5188

2 жыл бұрын

Only audio available, and he has a shocking French accent.

I think he was the chalk to the cheese. The diversity of leadership styles on the allied side is what won the war.

@ronryan7398

3 жыл бұрын

If Monty had have been in charge we'd still be fighting WW2.

@RuminatingWizard

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- It was a terrible arrogant plan.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Bravo 514 The narrow concentrated thrust which Montgomery favoured was a better idea than messing around in thr Hurtgen Forest and Lorraine for months on end which go nowhere.

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Could you imagine being a German commander going up against a British army commanded by Montgomery? It would be like are you kidding me? You want to fight me? The Germans 🇩🇪 were laughing hysterically! History has shown that the British fighting force is imbedded with cowardice and ineptitude. Montgomery was as incompetent as any commander in history and incapable of mustering any kind of intelligent assault. The British were quite good at withdrawal and quick to surrender. Germany 🇩🇪 knew it was to be an easy task with few casualties and many prisoners when facing an allied force commanded by Ole Monty. Many German officers were promoted and highly decorated due to Montgomery’s lack of military capabilities! A United States army full of 5 year olds and commanded by the worst of their commanders would have been more problematic and much more successful than anything the British could muster against the Germans 🇩🇪. Facts are that the British and Montgomery were just in the way when it came to winning the war in Europa! Montgomery was lucky that Eisenhower even allowed him to lap up America’s battle scraps after The United States rolled through victory after victory on their way to Berlin. I couldn’t imagine the humiliation Montgomery and the British army felt watching a real army at work, but they were definitely used to disgrace, shame and embarrassment. All the way from Dunkirk to the Philippines, to North Africa, to the Netherlands, it was always a defeat and a retreat. The only minuscule amount of success came in North Africa after The United States Army joined in and Rommel decided to leave North Africa, due to only having a few tanks left and not being given any reinforcements by Hitler, to save his men to fight another day. Montgomery still almost managed to lose to Rommel in Tunisia and would have lost had it not been for an endless supply of equipment and men and the assistance of The United States military against a German army that would not be reinforced. A very small group of German soldiers and commanders showed their superiority by holding off Montgomery until the few remaining Germans could be evacuated. Another humiliation for Montgomery and the British army. Churchill claimed it victory though, but once again the British armies ineptness was exposed when they entered Italy and lost thousands of soldiers against a few German paratroopers protecting Monte Cassino. The list is endless and no victories for the British and Montgomery. You’re welcome for the education and the truth behind the British and Montgomery’s capabilities during World War 2. Cheers!

@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85

Жыл бұрын

Monty's leadership style won battles. Bradley's didn't. Is that the diversity we're looking for? 🤣

This video is awesome and so much knowledge ful I get various knowledge from this not only from this your all videos are full of the glory of history and wisdom but your this video is perhaps the stunning one. . Your videos are heart touching and it is quite normal that those are win the heart of any one . So according to me your KZread channel is best channel on you tube . I subscribed you from 6k because of your that type of great videos and admiring work so I requested you to make a video on Skanderbeg please.

Do one on Edmund Allenby’s forces officially liberated Jerusalem. please

I felt this profile would have been better if it placed more emphasis on Alan Brooke's patronage of Montgomery as he certainly saved Montgomery's skin on more than one occasion. A problem for the British army was that they had lost so many talented officers in WW1 but for whose death would have risen through the ranks to senior command. There wasn't a lot of depth in senior ranks in the British army by the time WW2 broke out. In such a limited field a man of above average leadership skills was going to be noted and Montgomery was. He certainly was not as good as he thought he was but then that is not unusual for people such as him.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

When did Alanbrooke save Montgomery? 'There wasn't a lot of depth in senior ranks in the British army by the time WW2 broke out.' So what was the USA's excuse for their poor senior command?

@peterlovett5841

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 The US was not hesitant in removing failed commanders. I can understand your point re Eisenhower but his appointment was political on both sides of the Atlantic. Alanbrooke stepped in on a couple of occasions when Montgomery had gone too far in antagonising the US. Alnbrooke's diaries are well worth a read.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterlovett5841 Read them, got them here. Eisenhower in Tunisia, Italy, Western Europe after August 1944,. Bradley for D-Day, Normandy and the Bulge, Clark for Anzio, Brereton for Market. All kept their jobs.

@peterlovett5841

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 But a lot of the lesser lights were relieved of their commands. Far more than in British army. There is a lecture on KZread where a historian talks about the readiness of the US to relieve incompetent commanders in WW2 in comparison to their reluctance in Vietnam. The failure at Market Garden is now being thought more to the failures of "Boy" Browning at Nijmegen. But the reasons for that failure are many and one of them is Brereton.

The defensive positions and original planning was prepared by Auchinlek. Montgomery 'inherited' these! And it was USA supplied tanks and other materials, AND the Desert Air Force that made 'his' victory possible!!

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Gedeon Gelbart Total rubbish. Montgomery using Auchinleck's plan? This is what Montgomery's commander stated regarding this: THE MEMOIRS OF FIELD-MARSHAL EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS CASSELL, LONDON 1962 P22 ‘Recently there has been discussion whether or not General Montgomery ‘adopted’ as his own the plan evolved by his predecessor for the action that was shortly to be fought - actually within a little more than a fortnight of his taking over command - in defence of the Alamein position. I cannot conceive that General Montgomery is likely to have been interested in other people’s ideas on how to run the desert war; and in my own conversation with General Auchinleck, before taking over command, there was certainly no hint of a defensive plan that at all resembled the pattern of the battle of Alam Halfa as it was actually fought. …as I have already indicated, the actual pattern of the battle was exclusively Montgomery’s.’ And this is what Auchinleck had to say on the same subject: kzread.info/dash/bejne/X4Wgps2jqta_hps.html&ab_channel=PatrickRushton 15 mins, 55 seconds. As for the tanks...the key wepon in the desert was the anti-tank gun, and the British ones were made in Britain. The Desert Air Force contribution was acknowledged by Montgomery. 'And please remember that in1947 Montgomery insisted that Israel would NOT last 3 weeks after it declared independence. He appears to have been 'slightly' mistaken {the "hero" of operation Market Garden!}.' Clearly, Montgomery was wrong about Israel. As the old folk, women and children of the Gaza Strip, and the homeless of the West Bank can doubtless readily testify.

@11nytram11

3 жыл бұрын

Auchinleck planned a mobile reactive defense where he would used the Alam el Halfa ridge as a central defensive pivot around which his army would move to strike and meet the Germans in open battle. Montgomery's plan was a vastly simplified static defensive battle involving a dug-in defensive position on the Alam el Halfa ridge which the German would assualt and be broken by. Auchinleck's plan was certainly more ambitious but it was playing to the strenght of the enemy because the 8th Army had not the training nor equipment required to meet and defeat the Germans in open mobile warfare - they'd proven that time and time again throughout the Western Desert Campaign. Montgomery's plan was more conversative but played to the strenghts of the British Army because placed greater focus on the use of Artillery and negated the German superiority in mobile warfare. It is clear from any cursory glance that what Auchinleck planned to do compared to what Montgomery actually did were very different.

@11nytram11

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Probably not. The problem was that the British Army wasn't really designed for mobile warfare - for instance, all it's tanks were designed for infantry support, and its artillery was trained towards supporting infantry in set piece battles rather than for rapid use against a mechanised enemy. O'Conner had success in employing mobile warfare in the Western Desert Campaign largely because he was fighting Italians, and they were the worst prepared major combatant of WW2, with the worse equipment and the lowest levels of training. The Germans had geared their entire Army towards rapid mobility, and its equipment and training reflected that.

@11nytram11

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- SLEDGEHAMMER would likely have ended up like the Dieppe Raid and be a catasrophic failure as it was simply to small and weak in design to achieve anything. ROUND UP had more potential for success as it was a much larger operation in scale but whether the Allies would have been able to amass the man-power and material to successfully execute it in 1943 is questionable. SLEDGEHAMMER was designed to be a sacrificial token effort to appease the Soviets and George Marshall couldn't deliver even half of the man-power and material he was promising for it in 1942 - that's why Alan Brooke so vehemently opposed to it. For George Marshall the details of how the campaign in North-Western Europe would be fought weren't as important as getting the commitment to invade the continent as soon as possible. Once that commitment was made he believed the Allies could work out all the detail and make a success of it, and he believed that without that commitment for a direct cross-channel invasion the Allies would lack the offensive spirit and impetus to win the war against Germany. Alan Brooke, on the other hand, believed that the Allies should not invade the European continent too early or else they'd achieve nothing. He believed it was more worthwhile to stretch the German resources far and wide and get them to over-commit themselves to other theaters, so that when the Allies crossed the channel the Germans in North-West Europe would lack the strength to throw them back and lack the reserves to fully recover.

@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85

Жыл бұрын

To add to the other excellent responses here, Monty deliberately moved his HQ close to DAF, to better co-ordinate with them. Patton his hailed as a brilliant commander for his ability to use tactical air strikes, but somehow when Monty does it, it doesn't count...?

The Archduke's driver turns the wrong way and guess what , WW1 !

@haroldofcardboard

3 жыл бұрын

thats some serious road rage!

My uncle was with Monty in north Africa and I well remember him telling me, as a boy, Monty was not popular with the men but very respected as a commander. He was very cautious but also very careful not to risk the lives of his troops. My uncle said to me, With Monty it was "Ammo first, comforts second " but he was regarded highly for that.

@finallyfriday.

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, he rather use colony troops when it got rough, Canadians, Poles, Anzac, South African, etc. Spare British troops so he'd look good in the home press.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@finallyfriday. Your holidays are over. 'Yes, he rather use colony troops when it got rough, Canadians, Poles, Anzac, South African, etc. Spare British troops so he'd look good in the home press.' Where is there a shred of evidence to back up this lunatic claim?

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

mike Randall Montgomery was my father's commanding officer from D-Day to VE-Day, the prevailing opinion was the same in regard to Montgomery's of his troops.

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

​@@finallyfriday. This is utter nonsense. It may be ill-informed; it may be ill-intentioned; it is probably both. In any case, it's nonsense.

@finallyfriday.

11 ай бұрын

@@robertcottam8824 Read campaign reports and their casualty stats. Proportionally higher casualties. Just like the Japanese population has been denied the history of ww2, the English have been denied anything that shows what a flop Monty truly was. Most English say foolish things like: "Monty wasn't bad because look how Patton was stalled at Metz!!" Which ignores the fact that Monty took everyone's supplies to feed his fiasco at MarketGarden which in turn made everyone else, including Patton on static operations. The clown stalled Patton at Metz and use it as proof Monty was a genius. Sure. A genius for the Axis side. BTW- Monty ran along the coast of France therefore had the massive US/UK naval arm at his disposal for support to blast any opposition he faced and had the Allied airfields closest to his units for support, and in every operation had superiority in troops, artillery, navy, air, paratroops, supplies etc etc and still failed in the majority of his operations. Guess how many he mounted against Caen alone while US was capturing the rest of France. Monty barely got off the beach. (British arrogance at the cost of truth is why the Limey opinions are generally not taken seriously.)

Great story!

DeGaulle and Monty went to the same school of tactlessness

One Hour good explanation on General Montgomery -------

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Could you imagine being a German commander going up against a British army commanded by Montgomery? It would be like are you kidding me? You want to fight me? The Germans 🇩🇪 were laughing hysterically! History has shown that the British fighting force is imbedded with cowardice and ineptitude. Montgomery was as incompetent as any commander in history and incapable of mustering any kind of intelligent assault. The British were quite good at withdrawal and quick to surrender. Germany 🇩🇪 knew it was to be an easy task with few casualties and many prisoners when facing an allied force commanded by Ole Monty. Many German officers were promoted and highly decorated due to Montgomery’s lack of military capabilities! A United States army full of 5 year olds and commanded by the worst of their commanders would have been more problematic and much more successful than anything the British could muster against the Germans 🇩🇪. Facts are that the British and Montgomery were just in the way when it came to winning the war in Europa! Montgomery was lucky that Eisenhower even allowed him to lap up America’s battle scraps after The United States rolled through victory after victory on their way to Berlin. I couldn’t imagine the humiliation Montgomery and the British army felt watching a real army at work, but they were definitely used to disgrace, shame and embarrassment. All the way from Dunkirk to the Philippines, to North Africa, to the Netherlands, it was always a defeat and a retreat. The only minuscule amount of success came in North Africa after The United States Army joined in and Rommel decided to leave North Africa, due to only having a few tanks left and not being given any reinforcements by Hitler, to save his men to fight another day. Montgomery still almost managed to lose to Rommel in Tunisia and would have lost had it not been for an endless supply of equipment and men and the assistance of The United States military against a German army that would not be reinforced. A very small group of German soldiers and commanders showed their superiority by holding off Montgomery until the few remaining Germans could be evacuated. Another humiliation for Montgomery and the British army. Churchill claimed it victory though, but once again the British armies ineptness was exposed when they entered Italy and lost thousands of soldiers against a few German paratroopers protecting Monte Cassino. The list is endless and no victories for the British and Montgomery. You’re welcome for the education and the truth behind the British and Montgomery’s capabilities during World War 2. Cheers!

A pretty balanced summary of Monty - he did care about the welfare of his troops unlike Patton who put, at times, impossible tasks on his subordinates and, tolerated high casualties. Market garden was a failure from the start because of poor intelligence on German forces in the area, compounded by the limit of only one pathway to the key objective on the Rhine. I’m surprised Ike signed off on the operation.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Market Garden was a failure from the start due to the air planning by Brereton, Williams and Hollinghurst. Nothing to do with Montgomery. He had no say in it. He couldn't even persuade Brereton to fly double missions on day one. Had Montgomery the jurisdiction to actually plan Market Garden, it may have succeeded. Still, nearly 100 km of German held ground was taken in just 3 days. XXX Corps did nearly 90km in 48 hours. Fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period.

@lynnhauenstein4136

2 жыл бұрын

Yep Terry Stephens. Market Garden was a loser from the start. Ike signed off cuz good politician. At this point Germany was defeated just who gets the glory. Monty wanted it. Patton with fewer deaths could have marched right in. And he stopped to save soldiers of bulge. Don't watch to many movies. Patton about getting it done. IKE was now let's let Monty have his try. How many people killed because of ikes political decision.

@terrystephens1102

2 жыл бұрын

@@lynnhauenstein4136 I agree with you. Monty beat Rommel using the plan of his predecessor, with the very much increased support ordered by Churchill after his realisation that more was needed to win.This didn't stop Monty taking all the credit.

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Could you imagine being a German commander going up against a British army commanded by Montgomery? It would be like are you kidding me? You want to fight me? The Germans 🇩🇪 were laughing hysterically! History has shown that the British fighting force is imbedded with cowardice and ineptitude. Montgomery was as incompetent as any commander in history and incapable of mustering any kind of intelligent assault. The British were quite good at withdrawal and quick to surrender. Germany 🇩🇪 knew it was to be an easy task with few casualties and many prisoners when facing an allied force commanded by Ole Monty. Many German officers were promoted and highly decorated due to Montgomery’s lack of military capabilities! A United States army full of 5 year olds and commanded by the worst of their commanders would have been more problematic and much more successful than anything the British could muster against the Germans 🇩🇪. Facts are that the British and Montgomery were just in the way when it came to winning the war in Europa! Montgomery was lucky that Eisenhower even allowed him to lap up America’s battle scraps after The United States rolled through victory after victory on their way to Berlin. I couldn’t imagine the humiliation Montgomery and the British army felt watching a real army at work, but they were definitely used to disgrace, shame and embarrassment. All the way from Dunkirk to the Philippines, to North Africa, to the Netherlands, it was always a defeat and a retreat. The only minuscule amount of success came in North Africa after The United States Army joined in and Rommel decided to leave North Africa, due to only having a few tanks left and not being given any reinforcements by Hitler, to save his men to fight another day. Montgomery still almost managed to lose to Rommel in Tunisia and would have lost had it not been for an endless supply of equipment and men and the assistance of The United States military against a German army that would not be reinforced. A very small group of German soldiers and commanders showed their superiority by holding off Montgomery until the few remaining Germans could be evacuated. Another humiliation for Montgomery and the British army. Churchill claimed it victory though, but once again the British armies ineptness was exposed when they entered Italy and lost thousands of soldiers against a few German paratroopers protecting Monte Cassino. The list is endless and no victories for the British and Montgomery. You’re welcome for the education and the truth behind the British and Montgomery’s capabilities during World War 2. Cheers!

@richmcintyre1178

2 жыл бұрын

@@lynnhauenstein4136 Monty was not a good strategist. He had the Intel and ignored it. His big moment was more important. He "won" in Africa because the US gave him 500 tanks and the Navy supplied him well beyond what the Germans could match. Just a terrible commander.

Two recurring types of comments here: Those who take offense to any video that doesn't just claim that Americans were the ONLY allied power that mattered in WWII, and those who are actually willing to learn history and listen to the stories of other nations' heroes.

@robertgoines1831

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with your points, you gotta remember that it depends on who makes the documentaries and the topic. The Americans supplied a lot of the war material + finances but the Russians easily supplied way more manpower than maybe all the Allies combined. Part of that was the way that the Russians fought, they didn't value their soldiers lives like the other Allies especially leaders like Montgomery who did not just use his men as cannon fodder. And 1 last thing, I especially agree with your comment about how much spin has been allowed since practically day 1 after WW2. The statement by many people that the repercussions sought by the Allies is mostly victors justice is somewhat true. Of course the leaders of a criminal regime like the nazis were supposed to be brought to pay for their crimes but that doesn't whitewash the crimes or tactics that the Allies used but tried some nazis for or a more extreme example would be the Katyn Forest case. The Russians committed 1 of the most vile , reprehensible + repugnant war crimes committed by anyone including the disgusting nazis + being a victor had the gall to try and place the blame on the nazis, which made the crimes even worse

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@robertgoines1831 And Britain supplied the must win victories of the war.

@steveperreira5850

2 жыл бұрын

Robert Wayne : I totally agree with you Robert except for one point, the Russians enabled the Germans, massively enabled them at the beginning of the war before the Germans stab them in the back.

@steveperreira5850

2 жыл бұрын

Definitely more than 2 specific viewpoints here. I think the British get their feathers ruffled because their top general showed his true colors with that complicated debacle called “market garden.“ You’d think with all the experience that Montgomery had, that he know that the plan it was so complicated had so many more ways to go wrong, so that a better plan should have emerged. He wasn’t that bright, Sad to say.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Nick Danger, And what major battle in the ETO did the US win without British involvement? News for you. After El Alamein it was a combined Western Allied assault towards Germany. Nobody did it alone.

Thank you for the documentary about "Monty", very educational. I am still left purplexed on whether he cared about his men, or couldn't care less. He appeared to want recognition. He was a hero to the British, but a thorn in the side to the US and others. However all Allies participated, and they won WWII. Kudos to Monty! Again, thanks for the upload. Some suggestions: some of the snapshots don't match the narration. Talking about British troops, but showing US troops (helmets are obviously different), multiple uses of the same snapshot for different events, etc.

@lyndoncmp5751

3 ай бұрын

"but a thorn in the side to the US and others" Montgomery went to the aid of the Americans in retreat in the Ardennes and saved literally thousands of them. Under Montgomery, the allies moved fast and far and suffered less casualties than expected.

Monty for short.One of my school teacher was nicknamed Monty because he bare resemblence to Bernard Law Montgomery.

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Could you imagine being a German commander going up against a British army commanded by Montgomery? It would be like are you kidding me? You want to fight me? The Germans 🇩🇪 were laughing hysterically! History has shown that the British fighting force is imbedded with cowardice and ineptitude. Montgomery was as incompetent as any commander in history and incapable of mustering any kind of intelligent assault. The British were quite good at withdrawal and quick to surrender. Germany 🇩🇪 knew it was to be an easy task with few casualties and many prisoners when facing an allied force commanded by Ole Monty. Many German officers were promoted and highly decorated due to Montgomery’s lack of military capabilities! A United States army full of 5 year olds and commanded by the worst of their commanders would have been more problematic and much more successful than anything the British could muster against the Germans 🇩🇪. Facts are that the British and Montgomery were just in the way when it came to winning the war in Europa! Montgomery was lucky that Eisenhower even allowed him to lap up America’s battle scraps after The United States rolled through victory after victory on their way to Berlin. I couldn’t imagine the humiliation Montgomery and the British army felt watching a real army at work, but they were definitely used to disgrace, shame and embarrassment. All the way from Dunkirk to the Philippines, to North Africa, to the Netherlands, it was always a defeat and a retreat. The only minuscule amount of success came in North Africa after The United States Army joined in and Rommel decided to leave North Africa, due to only having a few tanks left and not being given any reinforcements by Hitler, to save his men to fight another day. Montgomery still almost managed to lose to Rommel in Tunisia and would have lost had it not been for an endless supply of equipment and men and the assistance of The United States military against a German army that would not be reinforced. A very small group of German soldiers and commanders showed their superiority by holding off Montgomery until the few remaining Germans could be evacuated. Another humiliation for Montgomery and the British army. Churchill claimed it victory though, but once again the British armies ineptness was exposed when they entered Italy and lost thousands of soldiers against a few German paratroopers protecting Monte Cassino. The list is endless and no victories for the British and Montgomery. You’re welcome for the education and the truth behind the British and Montgomery’s capabilities during World War 2. Cheers! I bet your school teacher felt ashamed!

Great & brilliant strategist Monty was. His concern for limiting casualties as much as possible for his Men in battle shows his Real wisdom & Care.Nice post, thanks so much.

Master mind of Goofy Garden - yes!

@thevillaaston7811

Жыл бұрын

Not really...

My grandfather served in the 8th army during Montgomery's time in Alamein, Sicily and Italy. He always said that Montgomery wasn't liked very much although effective. He didn't like him much either. They did however serve at many of the same battles, in the north Africa campaign and even up until D-day.

@thevillaaston7811

Жыл бұрын

My father served in British 2nd Army during Montgomery's time from D-Day to VE-Day. He had opinion of Montgomery. Why would he? He never met him.

@gabrieledwards1066

Жыл бұрын

​@TheVilla Aston I've never met Michael Jordan but I have an opinion of him too. I'm sure we all appreciate your father service but that's no excuse to go around the comments section and criticize other people with family members that have different experiences.

@thevillaaston7811

Жыл бұрын

@@gabrieledwards1066 What is there to appreciate? These are the things that happen in life, I guess. I don't know, I have never been in such a situation. It just seems odd to me, as layman, that like and dislike can be applied to such a distant figure as an army / army group commander. Who is /was Michael Jordan?

@gabrieledwards1066

Жыл бұрын

@TheVilla Aston I've seen about a dozen of your comments on this channel defending Montgomery and it seems disingenuous to me that you would claim ignorance over something as human as liking or disliking someone they haven't personally met. Who is Micheal Jordan? He's different things to different people. Google him.

@wendyHew

Жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 my grandfather did meet him, many times. That's how he formed the dislike.

Market Garden operation was an utter failure.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Market Garden freed a fifth of the Dutch population, hindred German V2 attacks on Britain, stretched the German line another 50 miles and left the allies placed to attack the Rhine in the following months.

@robertgoines1831

3 жыл бұрын

Yep,total disaster, but I still think Montgomery was a outstanding leader because he wouldn't just sacrifice his men all willy nilly. He took his responsibility to his men just as serious as any act he took in war + soldiers rever leaders like that

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

​@@robertgoines1831 What sort of idiot would post this: -Monty wasn't there to direct while an actual Field Marshall Model and Air Borne General Student were in fact conducting a clinic on effective modern mobile warfare -The V-2s were still being launched -The deep sea port of Antwerp was still closed that was needed for supplies -Over 17,000 crack allied Paras were lost. -The Dutch people suffered reprisals from the hunger winter in 22,000 of their citizens died of starvation and disease. -Many young Dutchmen were sent to work as slave laborers in defense industry in the Reich -Allies never made Arnhem much less Berlin as your hero bragged -Monty would not cross the Rhine for 6 more months and that was with the help of Simpson 9th US Army -Bernard,Prince of the Netherlands said later "My country can never again afford the luxury of another Montgomery success' Probably a teenager from Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 0/10. Field Marshall Model was there because his headquarters was in Oosterbeek. He soon fucked off when the fighting started, As I would have done. Student was there to command his forces. Army Group Commander Montgomery was at Eindhoven before the end of the battle. Eisenhower was in Ranville in Normandy, Brereton was England. The 17,000 losses were not entirely made up of Paratroops, and those losses compare with allied failures in the same period at Aachen (20,000), Metz (45,000) and the Hurtgen Forest (55,000). The Dutch Honger Winter was not caused by Market Garden. It was caused by the Germans, and the German treatment of the Dutch at that time was entirely consistent with German treat of other occupied areas at that time. Market Garden displaced no plan to liberate the bulk of the Netherlands at that time. Further, Market Garden liberated far more people than died in that winter. Deportation of Dutchmen to Germany as forced labour started long before Market Garden. Market Garden was not designed to take the allies to Berlin, as one of Montgomery's harshest critics has confirmed: 'Monty had no idea of going to Berlin from here [Arnhem]. By this time he was ready to settle for a position across the Rhine.' Arthur Tedder, when interviewed just after the war by the American Official Historian, Dr Pogue. None of the allies would cross the Rhine for another six months. US 9th Army was assigned to 21st Army Group because they were where the Germans were providing the stiffest opposition. The SS Man Prince Bernhard was distrusted by both British and US intelligence, both of whom, rightly showed him the door. Only his Royal status kept him out of prison in the 1970s.

@rnstoo1

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 There you go again with knowledge and facts! Why cant you just watch Hollywood fiction and be like the guy you responded to.

@folkblueswriter

2 жыл бұрын

To whoever says there is no God - Here is the latest Physics, the results of the Einstein Project - Free flip book version, new Unified Field Theory: “ *The Nature of Energy* ” online.anyflip.com/lglbb/gxoe/mobile/index.html Quantum Theory concludes that: *E²= m² c⁴+ p² c² [m=E/c² where E=∞=God]* Since we know that "A" is true, then "B" is true. I've never been in a religious group but Bible prophecies have a record of coming to pass. Here is what will happen - 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗵: “𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘸𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘥. 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩," 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥. "𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘬𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘢. 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥. 𝘚𝘰, 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘢𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴. 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘥𝘶𝘯𝘨.” “𝘕𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥'𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 - 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘦 - 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥'𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳.”

Was the movie A Bridge Too Far accurate??

@PeopleProfiles

3 жыл бұрын

Pretty much.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Judy Mac. Was the movie A Bridge Too Far accurate?? It was full of holes. Shall we run through them?

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

It was very inaccurate in places. Chief among them was the total omitting of Brereton. It was Brereton who planned and decided much of Market Garden. The scene where the 82nd take the Nijmegen bridge and in daylight is especially incorrect. The bridge was taken at dusk by the tanks of the Grenadier Guards. The 82nd were still at Lent there. Nor were the tankers sitting there drinking tea without a care in the world. They were guarding the bridgehead from an expected German counter attack and there were only five of them. The rest of the tanks were on the other side of the river and couldn't disengage from what they were doing there. They were very busy that day, supporting the 82nd all over the place as the 82nds reinforcements did not arrive.

@terrysmith9362

2 жыл бұрын

no nit accurate at all

Up to the failiure of Market Garden Montgomery had been successfull in all his operations, from El Alamein to Antwerp. He had lost his initial respect for the Wehrmacht, and believed Germany was on its last legs. Thus he abstained from his usual and characteristic meticullous preparation and caution. He wasn't a likeable person. He knew this, but he didn't care. Because results and actions speak louder than words. His men however loved him. And he himself was most at easy in their company, where could be extremely social skilled and likeable.

@lyndoncmp5751

Жыл бұрын

And he was successful again after Market Garden. His Scheldt campaign was the ONLY allied campaign of autumn 1944 to succeed in all its objectives, while all the others (Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine, Alsace, Vosges and Operation Queen) failed. Montgomery then went down and sorted the Ardennes retreat out for the Americans, at Eisenhowers behest. 👍

@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85

Жыл бұрын

Monty didn't plan Market Garden. So Monty was successful in all his operations throughout the war.

Terrific programme ....best of Britain..

Whilst I agree that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had a role in starting WWI I don’t believe, as many others would agree, that it was the only reason, a long line of factors that had occurred in the years leading up to the assassination of the Archduke were the primary reasons and the events in Sarajevo were just the “straw that broke the camels 🐫 back”, war had been, unfortunately, inevitable for some time. Amazing how he was awarded for the DSO for getting shot in the back and leg whilst being in no mans land, inspecting his defences, for bravery!!!! , more like stupidity, other men who who were actually wounded or killed in action, doing far more valorous things, got nothing or a far less prestigious award, amazing how officers get ‘gongs’ for doing their job and enlisted men get a slap in the face with a wet kipper. The Staff College is at R.M.A. Sandhurst, Sandhurst, near Camberley, Surrey, a small, but important differentiation, sorry,but I think that it’s important to get the small facts correct as much as it is the biggest ones. This was an excellent documentary film, even with some inaccuracies, thanks for sharing it with us all. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 P.S Montgomery played a vital role setting up NATO, an organisation that was and still is the most important mutually supporting, multi national power in the world, the vast majority of whom are European, but strangely the first two leaders are both American, why Eisenhower was appointed as its first commander is understandable, after all the war was over and Europe needed rebuilding, an ideal choice in Eisenhower as that was his specialty, an excellent administrator, not a combat leader, however, Montgomery should have been its second commander, but once again the politically correct decision was made, not because of any superior combat leadership ability, no, just because it was the Americans train set and only they could play with it. Perhaps if Montgomery HAD been one of the boys then he might have been allowed at the table of the high and mighty American generals, but because he wasn’t he was just sidestepped to appease American beliefs that they are the only ones capable of filling the position……………NOT. Just because Eisenhower was United States President when Montgomery published his memoirs what difference does that make, position and power doesn’t mean that you can’t be criticised or disagreed with, in fact it is more important for someone in power to be criticised and challenged about their role, Montgomery just asserted his right to free speech, something the Americans are constantly telling the whole world about.

Monty was respected by most of his German opponents. Heinz Guderian for example spoke highly of him. That says a lot.

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

They laughed their butts off when they knew Montgomery was coming! He was a complete imbecile and an incompetent commander and the Germans 🇩🇪 knew it. They loved hearing Ole Monty was in command, the German commanders knew they were all about to get promotions and medals for destroying opposing forces with minimal casualties and loss of equipment. ❤️

Ervin Rommel : hold my beer 🍺 haha

Montgomery homestead in County Donegal where Bernard lived as a Child.

a cantankerous although. brilliant man

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- CHESTER WILMOT THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE WM. COLLINS, SONS AND CO LTD. 1954 P589 'It was commonly believed at Third Army H.Q. that Montgomery's advance through Belgium was largely maintained by supplies diverted from Patton. (See Butcher, op. cit., p. 667.) This is not true. The amount delivered by the ' air-lift ' was sufficient to maintain only one division.' The air transport noted above was actually diverted from supplying he civillian population of Paris. Not from Patton.

@stevebenden7080

3 жыл бұрын

People seem to forget that he sent the Anzacs to the wrong landing point in Gallipoli and got a more killed yeah what a hero just an attention seeking self indulgent arrogant person wouldn’t even call him a general.. Here’s a man setting up our good blokes to die and shot to death this blokes lying in a bunk somewhere in England just watching them all die and get shot to pieces on the cliffs See a documentary on that just makes me sick to my stomach that my grandad died because of somebody else’s incompetency and then denied all knowledge of doing it he told me a lot of stories about this Montgomery. Just a show pony but he did say he was a shit show to.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@stevebenden7080 'People seem to forget that he sent the Anzacs to the wrong landing point in Gallipoli' because he did not. Montgomery spent the First World War in the Western Front, being wounded twice and being awarded the DSO.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- It seems, the retreat from Mons, Battle of Arras (1917) and Passchendaele (1917).

Very interesting! Thank you TPP! I liked Montgomery and his ways.

Hitler estimated he'd have the Netherlands overrun in 1 day, as planned in Fall Gelb. In reality the Dutch held out for 5 days, not 2, as mentioned. For what it's worth.

If he had been "Mr. nice guy" he would probably not have been as effective during the war. Such a huge effort requires the swashbuckling, hard charging generals but also depends on the meticulous planners. The fact he was so concerned with limiting the casualties of his men is in stark contrast with the British generals of WW1, like Haig, and does him much credit. War consumes vast numbers of men but they are men, not just numbers on a casualty list.

@BrianFrancisHeffron-1776

2 жыл бұрын

Montgomery, like most british generals, was an hindrance to the Allies. Canada and America had to deal with him just like they had to deal with the Nazis: a problem.

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Could you imagine being a German commander going up against a British army commanded by Montgomery? It would be like are you kidding me? You want to fight me? The Germans 🇩🇪 were laughing hysterically! History has shown that the British fighting force is imbedded with cowardice and ineptitude. Montgomery was as incompetent as any commander in history and incapable of mustering any kind of intelligent assault. The British were quite good at withdrawal and quick to surrender. Germany 🇩🇪 knew it was to be an easy task with few casualties and many prisoners when facing an allied force commanded by Ole Monty. Many German officers were promoted and highly decorated due to Montgomery’s lack of military capabilities! A United States army full of 5 year olds and commanded by the worst of their commanders would have been more problematic and much more successful than anything the British could muster against the Germans 🇩🇪. Facts are that the British and Montgomery were just in the way when it came to winning the war in Europa! Montgomery was lucky that Eisenhower even allowed him to lap up America’s battle scraps after The United States rolled through victory after victory on their way to Berlin. I couldn’t imagine the humiliation Montgomery and the British army felt watching a real army at work, but they were definitely used to disgrace, shame and embarrassment. All the way from Dunkirk to the Philippines, to North Africa, to the Netherlands, it was always a defeat and a retreat. The only minuscule amount of success came in North Africa after The United States Army joined in and Rommel decided to leave North Africa, due to only having a few tanks left and not being given any reinforcements by Hitler, to save his men to fight another day. Montgomery still almost managed to lose to Rommel in Tunisia and would have lost had it not been for an endless supply of equipment and men and the assistance of The United States military against a German army that would not be reinforced. A very small group of German soldiers and commanders showed their superiority by holding off Montgomery until the few remaining Germans could be evacuated. Another humiliation for Montgomery and the British army. Churchill claimed it victory though, but once again the British armies ineptness was exposed when they entered Italy and lost thousands of soldiers against a few German paratroopers protecting Monte Cassino. The list is endless and no victories for the British and Montgomery. You’re welcome for the education and the truth behind the British and Montgomery’s capabilities during World War 2. Cheers!

A remarkably fair summary of Monty, thank you, quite surprising considering how many of today's armchair warriors like to discredit Monty. He was unpopular with many who thought they were his equal or superior, that's not such a bad thing as he got results. Beside which, he can't have been that unpopular or he'd have been kicked out so one can conclude his 'unpopularity' is some what exaggerated. Possibly the best tests of a commander, besides being a winner are, did he waste lives, did his men trust and admire him? Monty passes all 3 of those tests with flying colours For all their sniping, the armchair 'experts' can't change that.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

Great post.

@liamparrish840

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 The dark hedges is a northern Ireland road which has birch trees on either side of it now lots of people claim there is a ghost who frequently glides along the road and under the trees she is said to be the grey lady and vanishes when she passes the last birch tree some say the ghost is that of a maid from the nearby manor house who died in mysterious circumstances hundreds of years ago but others think she is a lost spirit from the graveyard which is hidden in the fields nearby

@BrianFrancisHeffron-1776

2 жыл бұрын

Montgomery might as well have been working for the Nazis. He was that much of a problem for Canada and America: A Useless twit.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@BrianFrancisHeffron-1776 ‘Knowing that his old antagonist of the desert, Rommel, was to be in charge of the defending forces, Montgomery predicted that enemy action would be characterized by constant assaults carried out with any force immediately available from division down to a battalion or even company size. He discounted the possibility that the enemy under Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line and calmly and patiently go about the business of building up the greatest possible amount of force in order to launch one full-out offensive into our beach position. Montgomery’s predictions were fulfilled to the letter.’ US General Eisenhower 'In this diversionary mission Monty was more than successful, for the harder he hammered towards Caen, the more German troops he drew into that sector. Too many correspondents however had overrated the importance of Caen itself, and when Monty failed to take it, they blamed him for the delay. But had we attempted to exonerate Montgomery by explaining how successfully he had hoodwinked the Germans by diverting him toward Caen from Cotentin, we would also have given our strategy away. We desperately wanted the German to believe this attack on Caen was the main Allied effort.' US General Bradley `You see from the very start when I was under the command of the Marshal I got clear and definite orders what I had to do. From Bradley and my own people I never get any orders that make it clear to me what I have got to do. US General Simpson ‘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. The German commander of the 5th Panzer Army, Hasso von Manteuffel. "Montgomery who we first encountered in 1940 was probably the best tactician of the war if not the best strategist. He made mistakes. Rommel made mistakes as he too was stubborn. Montgomery when he arrived in Africa changed the way the 8th army fought, he was a very good army trainer and was ruthless in his desire to win, he changed the battle into an infantry battle supported by artillery. There has been much talk of using Montgomery to 'tidy up in the 'bulge' we would have done the same thing" German Generalmajor FW von Mellenthin. Fancy some more?..

@garyholschuh8811

2 жыл бұрын

Highly inaccurate depiction of actual events written by the victors, The United States of America supplied British army. Rommel had about 10 tanks left and Hitler refused to reinforce him! A 5 year old could have done far better than Montgomery with the endless supply of equipment and men at his disposal! And to be more concise an army if 5 year old Americans led by the worst American commanders could have surpassed any victory dreamed capable by a British army. British armies and commanders are notoriously known as cowards and incompetent at best! Montgomery was the laughing stalk of all military commanders during World War 2! Germany 🇩🇪 always had a mighty chuckle when they knew Ole Monty was about to attack. Montgomery almost managed to lose the battle in North Africa despite the outrageous advantages he had against and obviously superior German command and superior infantry. Rommel simply knew it was pointless and decided that getting his men out of there was the best option without reinforcements! If Montgomery was so awesome, don’t you think he would have been able to capture Rommel? Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on what actually occurred with the inept Montgomery and World War 2 before embarrassing yourself with inaccuracies and falsifications of actual events! Cheers from us that know!

This sounded like it came off of the back cover of a Monty autobiography. I sure wouldn't claim credit as "The Mastermind" of Market Garden.

@paulchristensen7528

2 жыл бұрын

Well, Market Garden WAS approved by Eisenhower! So I think he thought it was a good idea as well. Also, the Americans were supposed to clear the way for the British tanks to get through, which they failed at. So, we can't make Monty a total scapegoat for the failure.

@Colonel_Blimp

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 Eisenhower was SAC and by this time he was Land Forces Commander as well. Of course he was responsible for this major offensive.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 Err...its the other way round. Its standard US procedure to blame the nearest Briton when things go wrong. Hollywood then makes film about it with all the blame attached to the British.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Nick Danger You understand it wrong. Both Eisenhower and Brereton had to agree to Market Garden. The final decision was theirs. Brereton had to agree to the use of his First Allied Airborne Army and Eisenhower had to agree to the rest of it. Montgomery was only in command of British 21st Army Group. No air forces.

@yogotti9496

2 жыл бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 you do know Monty planned market garden right? GOOGLE IT. HOW ARE YOU DEFLECTING BLAME FROM MONTY FOR Market Garden? Just cuz Ike signed off on it doesn’t mean he was the mastermind behind the fucking failure of market garden. Holy shit m8.

.I could not get past this gentlemans voice.

@eugenio1542

2 жыл бұрын

A bit more relaxed would "fix" it ?

@The_Great_Darino

2 жыл бұрын

I tend to agree. Sounds like someone doing a poor imitation of Robin Leach.

Britain and its defunct empire did not have the ability to inflict a heavy defeat on the Axis. World War II was decided by the Battle of Moscow in 1941.

Some men are born great’”some achieve greatness” some have greatness thrust upon them………. Let the listener decide of which is his best suit and that which history tells you.

A fair judgement on the whole. Monty was a hard nosed professional in what had been an officer corps of upper class sporting gentlemen. Monty was not gentleman. Maybe he was a bit like U S Grant. He was a terrible colleague but a good boss--there was his strength and his weakness. Above all, which this programme could have made clearer, Monty understood his army. He knew what he could ask them to do and what he couldn't ask them to do. He was trusted by his troops and their families back home. It was his personal tragedy that after the death of his wife he lived in a state of emotional isolation. "May the earth rest softly on the old soldier's bones."

Let's not forget Caen as he "masterminded" that massive failure too. 😎 I wouldn't exactly be bragging about Market-Garden if I was him either. He should've headed the quartermaster corps something he seemed eminently qualified to do.

@11nytram11

Ай бұрын

Caen wasn't a failure. Even if it didn't go according to plan and didn't fall as quickly as intended it drew the vast majority of German men and resources, easing the way for the American breakout as the Germans had committed so much to the Battle for Caen that they had nothing to oppose the Americans once their front line was broken. Taking the city on the first day would have been nice, but it wasn't essential for winning the campaign, and turning the battle for Caen into a sinkhole for German resources ensured that their ultimate defeat in Normandy would be devastating - the Western Front in Europe was the only one where German resistance collapsed completely.

the marshal was only mentioned a few times!

Monty was a Hero especially at Dunkirk.

@diogocatalano9557

3 ай бұрын

Thanks to Germans who not pursued the British.

Fantastic video! I think Montgomery was quite arrogant and quite British! But I believe he was strongly instrumental in the allies winning WW2. You don’t have to like someone, it helps, to work with them and have a great team. Thank you for this video and all of your hard work making these. I enjoy them and learn from them all.😊

@judymac2590

3 жыл бұрын

How I feel about Patton...not really likeable but a great military mind.

@ronryan7398

3 жыл бұрын

How was he instrumental? He did win at El Alemain, where he had a numerical advantage in everything. What other battles did he win? He needed Patton to save his bacon in Sicily. He couldn't get off the beaches in Normandy. He didn't take the Scheldt estuary when it would have been easy. Arnhem. He was a lousy general who had no operational or strategic gifts. He was puffed up because Bill Slim was too far away.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronryan7398 'numerical advantage in everything'...apllied to every single US action in the war in Europe. Which one do you want? 'What other battles did he win?' ♦ Battle of Alam Halfa; ♦ Battle of El Agheila; ♦ Battle of Medenine; ♦ Battle of the Mareth Line; ♦ Battle of Wadi Akarit; ♦ Husky; ♦ Overlord; ♦ Battle of the Bulge (Northern half); ♦ Veritable; ♦ Plunder. Shall I add in the outstanding work he did ans a single division commander? 'He needed Patton to save his bacon in Sicily' Not really: From a review of BITTER VICTORY The Battle for Sicily, 1943, By Carlo D'Este. Review written by Walter Lord in the New York Times: 27/11/1988. ‘Montgomery was heading for Messina too, but the German forces still on the island threw up a tough defense line and it was late July before Montgomery worked his way through them and resumed his advance. Fans of the movie ''Patton'' think they know what happened next. Montgomery marched into Messina at the head of his triumphant troops - to find a smirking Patton waiting for him. Mr. D'Este assures us it didn't happen that way. Patton was indeed trying to beat Montgomery to Messina, but Montgomery would not make a race of it. He wanted only to keep the Germans from escaping and realized Patton was in the best position to accomplish that. In fact he urged Patton to use roads assigned to the Eighth Army.’ For your convenience, the link below will take you to this review… www.nytimes.com/1988/11/27/books/the-finish-line-was-messina.html 'He couldn't get off the beaches in Normandy.' If anyone could not get off the beaches in Normandy, it was Bradley at Omaha. Shall e discuss? 'He didn't take the Scheldt estuary when it would have been easy.' How would you know? He was a lousy general who had no operational or strategic gifts. So who was a good general? He was puffed up because Bill Slim was too far away. Puffed up? Can you explain?

@TheBenj30

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronryan7398 Patton had a numerical advantage in the Lorraine Campaign against troops which consisted of battalions of deaf people, cooks and battalions of people with Stomach Ulcers... and Patton took more casualties attacking them when they didn't have an SS Panzer Division alongside them than Montgomery did during Market Garden. Patton isn't even deserving of being considered in the same breath as Montgomery, Patton was a gung-ho moron who threw away the lives of his troops because he wanted to be perceived as a the hero. You going to pretend as if his Task Force Baum thing didn't happen, where he got a bunch of his troops killed so he could try and rescue his Son in Law?

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Ron Ryan, In the Lorraine in early November 1944 Patton had a 3:1 superiority in men and 8:1 superiority in tanks.....and still failed.

Monty is one historical figure I would like to meet and tell him he went down in history as a terrible general!

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

'he went down in history as a terrible general!' Who's history?..

@jaycurtis5036

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 Most stuff I have read

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaycurtis5036 You mean like the works of chauvinistic hack US historians?..

@jaycurtis5036

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 Guess you never heard of operation market garden.

@terrysmith9362

2 жыл бұрын

i guess you never heard of the incompetence of Ike at the Ardense offensive or Patton at Metz

Ted Danson was wrong, this guy's underrated! (Saving Private Ryan reference)

@nogod7184

3 жыл бұрын

Ted Danson is always doctor Becker to me. "Extremely smart and extremely stupid at the same time", said Margaret, his nurse/receptionist.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@aaropajari7058 Yep.

The most overrated general in British if not World history. He won literally 1 battle in his career, and almost gave that one away. The worst combination of timidity and recklessness. By the end of the war Ike wouldn't even meet with him. Literally a donkey leading lions.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Wall to wall rubbish. Montgomery won at Alam el Halfa, Alamein, Mareth, Sicily, Normandy, the Scheldt, the Northern half of the Bulge and the Rhine. From D-Day to VE Day Montgomery was a thorough professional surrounded by no nothing Ameicans.

@ronryan7398

3 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 Really? He won in Sicily? Patton had to come to his rescue. The British couldn't get off the beaches at Normandy despite facing the least opposition.The Americans and Canadians faced stiff opposition and were both on the move before the British.He didn't take the Scheldt when it was practically undefended and then the Canadians, not the British, had to slug it out for months after. Arnhem? I guess we don't have to say anymore about Arnhem and his "90% successful operation" (He was an egomaniacal asshole to boot) When the Americans were trapped in Bastoigne all Monty could do was make excuses why he couldn't relieve them despite being 100 miles closer than Patton was. Get your facts straight. And it's KNOW-nothing not NO-nothing. If you want to celebrate a British general go with Bill Slim. I wouldn't be too hard on the Americans either. They fought the Germans and beat the Japanese by themselves. (Talk about a two front war)

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@ronryan7398 ‘Really? He won in Sicily? Patton had to come to his rescue.’ Not really…Patton tried to foist a lunatic plan on the allies of landing all around the island. Good sense prevailed and Montgomery’s plan to concentrate resources in one place was a triumphant success. Patton deserted the battlefield to take the unimportant town of Palermo and then had to be coaxed back to the real battle with the offer of being allowed to take Messina. From a review of BITTER VICTORY The Battle for Sicily, 1943, By Carlo D'Este. Review written by Walter Lord in the New York Times: 27/11/1988. ‘Montgomery was heading for Messina too, but the German forces still on the island threw up a tough defense line and it was late July before Montgomery worked his way through them and resumed his advance. Fans of the movie ''Patton'' think they know what happened next. Montgomery marched into Messina at the head of his triumphant troops - to find a smirking Patton waiting for him. Mr. D'Este assures us it didn't happen that way. Patton was indeed trying to beat Montgomery to Messina, but Montgomery would not make a race of it. He wanted only to keep the Germans from escaping and realized Patton was in the best position to accomplish that. In fact he urged Patton to use roads assigned to the Eighth Army.’ For your convenience, the link below will take you to this review… www.nytimes.com/1988/11/27/books/the-finish-line-was-messina.html The British couldn't get off the beaches at Normandy despite facing the least opposition. The least opposition was at met by the US forces Utah Beach, were some of the beach exits were totally undefended. The US forces at Omaha Beach were met by the stiffest beach opposition but their problems there were made much worse by poor preparation. The far better prepared British 2nd Army met average opposition at Gold, June and Sword Beaches but were quickly ashore and able to deal with the only major counter attack of the day, in front of Caen by the German 21st Panzer Division. ‘The Americans and Canadians faced stiff opposition and were both on the move before the British.’ Definitely not, Gold, Juno and Sword Beaches quickly joined up the American setback at Omaha Beach left the allies unable to form a whole front for over a week. ‘He didn't take the Scheldt when it was practically undefended and then the Canadians, not the British, had to slug it out for months after.’ The Scheldt was never practically undefended, The German 15th Army was there in force before the 21st Army Group got to that place, particularly the Breskens Pocket. The Scheldt was taken by Canadian, British and Polish forces, under the command of Montgomery. Arnhem? I guess we don't have to say anymore about Arnhem and his "90% successful operation" Arnhem freed a fifth of the Dutch population, hindered German rocket attacks on Britain, stretched the German forces front by another 50 miles and left the allies well placed to attack the Rhine later in the war. ‘(He was an egomaniacal asshole to boot)’ You met him when?.. When the Americans were trapped in Bastoigne all Monty could do was make excuses why he couldn't relieve them despite being 100 miles closer than Patton was. Get your facts straight. And it's KNOW-nothing not NO-nothing. If you want to celebrate a British general go with Bill Slim. Montgomery was never tasked with reaching Bastogne. He was tasked with sorting out the American mess in the North and stopping he Germans reaching the Meuse after Bradley and Hodges lost the plot. Here is a German view of Montgomery’s actions: ‘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’. Hasso von Manteuffel. Commander, 5th Panzer Army. Re you Arnhem comment, it's any more, not anymore. ‘I wouldn't be too hard on the Americans either. They fought the Germans and beat the Japanese by themselves. (Talk about a two front war)’ Britain also fought the Japanese and fought the Germans for six years, a year of which on their own, with the Germans 20 miles away for four of those years. (A real two front war). As far as who did what in the Second war goes, we rule.

@cwr3959

3 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 Bravo Sir

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 What wee the consequences of not taking Caen?..

Hi a good documentary overall a few gaps missing like he never got on with his mother for the rest of his life he never forgave her for the way she treated him. Also his race against Patton to reach Palermo in Sicilian campaign. Many criticise General Horrocks 30th Corps for being cautious at the race to reach Arnhem as well. It's not only Monty has been criticised for being cautious in the British army but most of the generals in the desert campaign according to Correlli Barnetts book the Desert Geberals. The only daring or dashing commanders we had were General O Connor who was an expert in armoured warfare led the Western Desert force to repel the 1940 Italian offensive and the other commander who is equal some consider superior to Monty General Bill Slim of the 14th Army in Burma who had Montys organisation abilities had the ability to inspire a defeated army then carried out one of the most daring complex campaign in the war sadly always forgotten like his forgotten army.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Roland Whittle There was no race to Palermo. Patton absconded from the battlefield to go there.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Roland Whittle Here is an American view on Sicily… From a review of BITTER VICTORY The Battle for Sicily, 1943, By Carlo D'Este. Review written by Walter Lord in the New York Times: 27/11/1988. ‘Montgomery was heading for Messina too, but the German forces still on the island threw up a tough defense line and it was late July before Montgomery worked his way through them and resumed his advance. Fans of the movie ''Patton'' think they know what happened next. Montgomery marched into Messina at the head of his triumphant troops - to find a smirking Patton waiting for him. Mr. D'Este assures us it didn't happen that way. Patton was indeed trying to beat Montgomery to Messina, but Montgomery would not make a race of it. He wanted only to keep the Germans from escaping and realized Patton was in the best position to accomplish that. In fact, he urged Patton to use roads assigned to the Eighth Army.’ For your convenience, the link below will take you to this review… www.nytimes.com/1988/11/27/books/the-finish-line-was-messina.html And another American source: The Axis powers had known before the landings on Sicily that Patton was in command of American ground forces in the western Mediterranean, and knew he led Seventh Army on Sicily. But his race to Palermo through country they had already abandoned left the commanders unimpressed. Major General Eberhard Rodt, who led the 15th Panzergrenadier Division against Patton’s troops during the Allied push toward Messina, thought the American Seventh Army fought hesitantly and predictably. He wrote in an immediate postwar report on Sicily, “The enemy very often conducted his movements systematically, and only attacked after a heavy artillery preparation when he believed he had broken our resistance. This kept him regularly from exploiting the weakness of our situation and gave me the opportunity to consolidate dangerous situations.” www.historynet.com/patton-the-german-view.htm

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

In his own diary and in his communicationd to Alexander, Montgomery actually requested Patton try and get to Messina as quickly as possible in order to try and cut off the Germans. Montgomery WANTED Patton to move on Messina. Unlike Patton, Montgomery wanted to win the war, not to one up other generals.

@jacktattis

6 ай бұрын

Bullshit Blamey and Morehead were better than OConnor

The comments and assessments about Monty seem to me to be very accurate and very specific... I think they are the most accurate to the truth. Thank you very much.

@lyndoncmp5751

Жыл бұрын

And not a jot of American bias and nonsense anywhere.

The black and white illustrations showing allied progress across Europe came from a documentary I saw many years ago, can anyone help name it please?

@ForageGardener

9 ай бұрын

All of these photos are used all the time in many documentaries. They are common popular photos

Montgomery is so correct that the morale of armies is the most important single aspect of war. It seems kind of obvious but often military commanders can seem to forget how important this is. That, pervitin, and new tactics were the most important reasons in the incredibly successful German Blitzkrieg. Germans really had an inferior army across the board than the allies did in France, at best equal. But that an incredible belief in themselves allowed a still much “horse drawn army” despite the propaganda focus defeated a strong combined force SO fast

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Von Mellenthin said Montgomerys arrival in North Africa changed it overnight. Chief among this was the vast improvement in it's moral and vigorous training.

@brentinnes5151

Жыл бұрын

not good for morale to drop elite troops on top of Panzer divisions

Montgomery. That guy could screw up a cup of coffee.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

Why do you state that?

Monty was an idea commander, I'll take slow and methodical any day over brash and impulsive.

@johnburns4017

2 жыл бұрын

Where was Monty slow?

@ianclarke1852

Жыл бұрын

Monty valued the lives of his soldiers having experienced the mass slaughter of WW1. He recognised these men had parents, wives and girlfriends at home. There were generals in WW2 who risked the lives of their soldiers in order to enhance their own reputation.

hopefully, the knuckle draggers that think the movie "Patton" was a documentary, won't comment on this video with asinine comments. Extremely well researched and constructed video

@djquinn11

3 жыл бұрын

Knuckle staggers? You need tough, fighting generals in a major war. Patton had his flaws but by God so did Monty.

@First_Sea_Lord_Ford

3 жыл бұрын

@@djquinn11 I don't know why your bringing Patton's reputation into it. I was pointing out that people who like that ahistorical film tend to be knuckle draggers that know nothing of military strategy or tactics

"Mastermind" of Market Garden - is that not an oxymoron? Was Churchill the "Mastermind" of Gallipoli?

@PeopleProfiles

3 жыл бұрын

To mastermind means to plan a complex operation. It doesn't just mean genius or brilliant mind. We really shouldn't have to explain these things to people.

@yingyang1008

3 жыл бұрын

@@PeopleProfiles It would still be strange to say that Churchill was the mastermind behind Gallipoli Or that Lucius Aemilius Paullus was the 'mastermind' behind Rome's annihilation at the Battle of Cannae Whatever - I like your channel and appreciate your efforts I just think we are told a lot of nonsense about WWII and that Monty was nothing special at all Churchill is also someone who I think history will gradually judge more harshly in the future as the propaganda wears off

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Ying Yang The airborne part of Market Garden was the work of the US General Brereton - he was the "Mastermind" of that.

@robertgoines1831

3 жыл бұрын

Great point my friend

@yingyang1008

3 жыл бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 Smells of influence of Churchill to me - exactly the kind of thing he would dream up

what a brave man well done

Montgomery and Patton may have been great generals ,they were both egotisitical prima donnas, as was Gen. MacArthur.and Gen. DeGaulle

@ForageGardener

9 ай бұрын

Politicians

Quick to claim credit, faster to deny failure. Egomaniacal back stabbed. Cautious to a fault.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

I think you are being too hard on yourself.

The 1st battle of El-Alimain was the Critical battle NOT the 2nd battle , by that time the Afrika Korp was in a hard shape . As for Market Garden it was badly planned , oh and let's not forget his 100 days before going after Amsterdam leaving it up to the Canadians to deal with the mess. Not saying he was worse than a lot of other Generals but he was no great genius, the fact the troops felt confident with him in charge was no small skill, just that he is over- rated.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

'oh and let's not forget his 100 days before going after Amsterdam leaving it up to the Canadians to deal with the mess.' What 100 days?

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 From the same source:.. 'Alternative courses of action have never been examined in detail but the basic elements are clear. Instead of ordering XXX Corps to halt at Antwerp and then turn east, the Corps could have advanced west to the estuary to join forces with airborne troops landing on Walcheren Island.' ..It belongs in the bin. It is well known (or should be) that Brereton had turned down a request for airborne troops to be landed on Walcheren.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

robert colboourne 'he is over- rated.' Yea, by Americans for decades, as they attack Montgomery from every direction: Hollywood, crap web sites, chauvisistic historians and so on. All of them splitting hairs about all of his actions whilst breezing over bog up after bog up by US commanders. If Eisenhower or Bradley had devised the Normandy campaign, there would have been films, TV mini series, statues, reverential lectures on the US lecture circuit, books by the Lorry load, with copies in some pupose built library in some Mid-West US state, and so on and so on.

@robertcolbourne386

2 жыл бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 sorry a slip of the tongue so to speak I meant Antwerp , it had been captured but the Shelt had not been cleared so no shipping . The Canadian 1st did not get any reinforcements from Monty until the middle of Oct , almost 3 was after the failure of Market Garden. Monty himself said not concentrating on Antwerp 1st was a mistake . I'm not saying was a bad General just people give him too much credit .

@lyndoncmp5751

Жыл бұрын

Robert And yet his Scheldt campaign suceeded in its objectives. The ONLY western allied campaign of autumn 1944 to achieve that. And it was achieved with just 1/4 the casualties of Patton's Lorraine failure. Not that it mattered much. Antwerp was exaggerated in importance. It was fully open in late November and supplies poured in...... yet the Americans still failed in Operation Queen in December and then even got pushed back into a retreat in the Ardennes. Antwerp was open nearly a month by then.

Well he wasn't the best tactician, BUT he had leadership in spades. Winston was the Same, not the best, but a great leader - he failed to get into Sandhurst three times don't forget. Monty likewise - he only managed Sandhurst much later in his career. So this is the dilemma: great natural leadership or high intelligence academically ? Its a fine balance between the two. Hitler was clearly a fool of low intelligence with a low military rank of corporal - but he had the ability to lead - he was a military con-man. It finds them out in the end.

Why he looks like "general shaped" in cod ghost!

It helps when you're reading the German codes (Egnima).

@11nytram11

3 жыл бұрын

Just like it helped Rommel when the Germans were intercepting Bonner Frank Fellers detailed reports to Washington about the state and plans of the 8th Army.

@mikestevenson2303

3 жыл бұрын

@@11nytram11 Was the majority of half of Rommel's supplies on the Mediterranean floor from the British reading Enigma or not?

@11nytram11

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikestevenson2303 Yeah. Your point? Were the Germans not intercepting Bonner Frank Fellers reports and using them against the British? Did they not sink convoys in the Mediterranean because Fellers reports told them where and when to find them? Did Rommel not use him to his advantage as a "good source" of information on strength and location of British forces? This kind of military espionage went both ways, and Rommel took advantage of it when he had the chance to just as Monty did.

@mikestevenson2303

3 жыл бұрын

@@11nytram11 That Rommel lost North Africa because his supplies were always being sunk. The Historian John Keegan said that all the time.

@11nytram11

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikestevenson2303 That's true. Rommel did suffer from a lack of supplies due to them being sunk in the Mediterranean - but that's not the comment I responded to. You said "it helps when you're reading the German codes" and that was it. My counter-point to this is Rommel was also helped by the Germans having broken the American's "Black Code" to give him information about the strength, disposition, plans and morale of the British almost in real time - Rommel would have a copy of Fellers report within hours of Fellers sending it to Washington. I'm not arguing that Rommel's supplies weren't being sunk - I'm saying both sided benefitted from intercepting the other side's reports.

A great general. Despite his whinging modern critics he achieved every objective asked of him and all with minimal casualties. He wasn't perfect but he was a great leader

@dashcroft1892

3 жыл бұрын

Minimum British casualties? Operation Market Garden was a bit ambitious, but he was a great leader nonetheless.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@dashcroft1892 Montgomery's record on keeping casualties low was outstanding.

How did you discover all this? I really struggled learning much about this remarkable man over google.

@PeopleProfiles

2 жыл бұрын

Books

The Netherlands capitulated after five days, not two. Also Zeeland holded out almost two weeks longer.

He was a Competent leader.

@californiadreamin8423

3 жыл бұрын

......your expertise being ???

@jamesbodnarchuk3322

3 жыл бұрын

@@californiadreamin8423 my Dad served under him in Northwest Europe WW2.

@californiadreamin8423

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesbodnarchuk3322 My father was a stretcher bearer in France , Dunkerque, North Africa, Salerno, the Garigliano, Anzio, the Gothic Line to Trieste. I inherited my father’s passion for reading about these events , because he knew he was lucky to survive when so many of his friends did not. I think your comment significantly understates the leadership and military skills of Montgomery. Over and above his success in North Africa, he planned and was land force commander for D-Day up to the breakout following the virtual annihilation of the German Army in France.

@californiadreamin8423

3 жыл бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 Take up it up with Churchill and Alan Brook who decided to replace Auchinleck with Alexander and appoint Montgomery in command of the 8th Army. Now just why did they do this ? The rest is history. Regarding the rest of your rant, you are simply showing your ignorance.

@californiadreamin8423

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 Yes thank you I know. It was General Gott.