Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/qxtaf2eg

@smokejaguarsix7757

9 ай бұрын

This video is ridiculous. You paint Montgomery as some misunderstood genius who only rubbed people the wrong way but was always right as you crap all over the American generals as only a Brit would. Ive read Montys book. He is media obsessed. He cares nothing for the ideas of others and actively undermined his superiors, subordinates and peers claiming credit for the work of others time and time again. You claim Bradley wanted the limelight? Are you daft? Thats clearly false and you give no proof of your ascertation whatsoever. Bradley liked the limelight least of all. Montgomery was furious about Patton taking Messina because he wanted the limelight and accolades. He went on and on about it claiming he should have been allowed to take it first. When he went behind Bradleys back about Market Garden he should have been relieved not rewarded. If Ike hadn't been so obsessed with maintaining Churchills good graces he probably would have. Market Garden was stupid and Monty took great pains to ignore and supress any intel that painted the German troops in the region as anything other than old men and kids. There are reems of evidence to that effect. The signs were all there but he wanted the glory of crossing the Rhine first. As to Caen, he sent commonwealth troops to slaughter and ignored his subordinates who begged him to listen to them and allow them to attack the flanks or fix then bypass it to cut off their supplies. Caen didnt need to go down that way. He wanted the glory of taking Caen and couldnt be dissuaded. It didnt take 6 weeks because he was whittling down the Germans. It took 6 weeks because he insisted on idiotic frontal assaults against dug in forces holding superior positions with excellent fields of fire. He only dressed it up as attrition warfare later as if losing tanks and troops in a mindless slugfest was the only way to win. Patton bypassed German troops endangering their flanks which forced them to withdraw and eventually rout. He then destroyed them in good order taking far fewer casualties. Monty objected to Pattons plan. He didnt support it. Had Montgomery done the same he would have made the German positiom untenable and they'd have had to withdraw becoming easier to handle elsewhere where they didnt have positional advantage. Caen was wasteful but he didnt care because they werent British troops. Monty was not some genius commander. He attacked only when he thought he had a massive advantage or when he believed he could make a bigger splash than Patton or Bradley and he politicked behind the backs of his peers and his superiors at every opportunity. You blame others for the fractuous nature of the alliance but he was the biggest cause of these fractures. Patton had Montys number just right, Monty was a snake and a primadonna obsessed with his own image and willing to throw everyone else under the bus if he could make a big splash in the papers.

@arnijulian6241

9 ай бұрын

Patton rushed forward & his troops did war crimes against the local Italian civilians. Montgomery was not autistic but an Englishmen. Yanks trying to think like a Limey is like a cats thoughts vs a octopus thoughts. Montgomery didn't underestimate the USA but knew their nature & tendencies better then they knew themselves. Typical fashion Montgomery mistook Patton & the USA as soldiers thinking they would follow ''orders'' but that never happens with yanks as they do as please being a Hollywood trope like cowboys or an action man. Montgomery was not seeking fame like Patton or any USA General inflecting on Britain what they did but Montgomery was carrying out his job & damn appearances or sentiment as that is not the role or position of a man in commissioned service. Montgomery greatest only mistake was for thinking USA troops were a professional standing army but really they were militia armed with everything under the sun. Why yanks are as dangerous to themselves as the enemy as friendly fire statistic have shown. My father to my Great grand father would always say roughly ''any front with Yanks is of more danger then any enemy'' it is like watching a force of nature as if a storm rather then well ordered machine like the Germans. America's Greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness like a double edged sword for they have no idea what they are doing with no clear orders so the enemy has no idea what the USA is doing. The USA is very unconventional militarily & no other nation could afford such a method of attack with chaos & supremacy of firepower throwing money at any problem.

@patricktorres4226

9 ай бұрын

I clicked it but i just got a regular install

@Golden-dog88

9 ай бұрын

Cause Monty a Brit used the allies (ANZAC’S) mainly & resources that he had making a plan that would work. By doing this he done what the yanks said couldnt be done he beat the desert fox rommel in the desert where the yanks couldnt get a break

@bigwoody4704

9 ай бұрын

Both Generals O'Connor and Auchinleck won in the Desert with a lot less men and material - monty got thrown out of Europe before. Pay attention school is in session EVERYTHING was already in place to win in the desert. Montgomery had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any of the actions below. He reaped the benefits of them and others who came before. The the brandy soaked Churchill removed the wrong guy and stuck with a mistake rather than dare admit he made one. *Churchill wrongly removed General Auchinleck who argued that his men had not regrouped and needed reinforcing. Several military analysts accused Churchill of misunderstanding desert warfare tactics, saying he placed too much emphasis on territorial occupation Auchileck/Dorman-Smith stated they needed 6 weeks to refit,reinforce and resupply. Made perfect sense attrition on men and materiel took it's toll. So what does Monty do - took 10 weeks(Aug-13-Oct 23) to advance​ - much more time than Auchileck and Dorman Smith insisted on and got fired for in the 1st place.* 🔶The Torch Landings - forces included 60,000 troops in Morocco, 15,000 in Tunisia, and 50,000 in Algeria. Claude Auchinleck called over two fresh divisions from the Nile Delta after winning 1st alamein.Both of these troop deployments forced Rommel's hand as now there would be more enemy troops to deal with. And he wasn't getting either reinforced or resupplied 🔶Monty didn't defeat Rommel in Africa. The British Navy did by starving Rommel of resources. 🔶Monty didn't build up the arms/men/tanks/materiel - the allies did -Dorman-Smith had engineers and infantry plant the massive mine field on the Alam Halfa ridge , that Bernard attempted to take credit for. 🔶ULTRA became fully operational in August 1942 after the Germans had changed some wheels/gears on Enigma 🔶The RAF and Royal Navy completely strangled the Afrika Korps supply lines. Sweeping the skies and seas in/over the Mediterranean 🔶Montgomery had 1500 miles and every conceivable advantage - BIG ADVANTAGES in men/materiel/air cover/intelligence/tanks/artillery and still Montgomery never captured Rommel 🔶Mongomery never opened ports or captured Air Strips for them in return this would continue into Sicily and Normandy where Monty's deficiencies would be exposed - Rommel in his memoirs credited complete Air superiority by Conningham's RAF that they could hardly sleep in the heat and battle of the day and could only move at nite 🔶 *Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts p.282-83 On 12 September 1942 Churchill had cause to thank Roosevelt telling him the 317 Sherman tanks and 94 self propelled 105 mm guns "which you kindly gave me on that dark Tobruk day in Washington" and arrived safetly in Egypt and been received with the greatest enthusiasm - as these tanks were taken from the hands of the American Army*

A famous yarn about Monty. Eisenhower was having dinner with King George VI, the king asked Ike. "How are you getting on with Monty?" Ike replied "Well.. I think he wants my job." "That's a relief." replied the King. "I thought he wanted mine."

@billolsen4360

9 ай бұрын

That's a good one!

@Gungho1a

9 ай бұрын

I knew an australian company commander who reminisced how montgomery insisted 8th Army officers did five mile runs daily in the lead up to Alamein. His judgement was that the time would have been better spent planning than being wasted on basic training carry on. I should point out that he had fair reason for that judgement, his company took 60% losses attempting to cut the coastal road to draw off the panzer reserve to allow the breakout. The brit armour supporting them turned up late and stayed hull down out of range, their integral AT guns, Mortars and Vickers guns were held up on the minefields, and the battalion's closest support was near a thousand yards away...the only thing that saved them was the germans and italians let them carry out their wounded after the two forward companies were overrun by panzers.

@Gungho1a

9 ай бұрын

@@Desdichado-vs8ls That I agree with. He really never got out of the trenches of WW1. Coincidentally, one of Rommel's desert staff officers observed that Rommel was still the junior officer who fought and won his fame in italy in WW1. The reality for Rommel was that by british standards, he did show outstanding generalship, but by germam standards he was average, and was propped up in the desert by a staff picked for him specifically to strengthen his weaknesses...Rommel was never selected for general staff training, which is a fair indicator of his professional standing. He was lucky he was a hitler favourite, which makes the british hero worship of him rather tasteless. The brits have always shied away from confronting the issue of Rommel's and DAK's support for the einsatzgruppe operating in their rear area.

@MaxLib

9 ай бұрын

That’s awesome hahaha

@MaxLib

9 ай бұрын

@@yyy-875 Lol you’re probably right about that.

Being able to handle generals with such great egos makes me think that perhaps Eisenhower was America's greatest gift to the European theater in WW II.

@LARPing_Services_LLC

9 ай бұрын

Criminally underrated comment.

@Nmille98

9 ай бұрын

Him knowing when and how to use Monty, Patton, and Bradley, among many others with fewer stars, is why I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.

@tigerwoods373

9 ай бұрын

Yeah especially since he never had frontline action some wouldn't respect him as much. I believe he was mainly a logistician so some would question if he knew what he was doing. He didn't just have to deal with certain generals egos, but the competition between American and British generals. Look at the invasion of Sicily, the race between patton and Montgomery.

@thomasmolloy5447

9 ай бұрын

Eisenhower is sometimes derided for not being a battlefield general, and there is some limited justice in saying so. But Eisenhower did so incredibly well in the political aspects of being a general, that for that specific aspect of being a general, he is probably the best in the history of the world.

@stevengoodloe3893

9 ай бұрын

That's why he went from a Colonel to General of the Army in three years. Patton outranked Eisenhower at the beginning of the war. General Marshall (then Chief of Staff of the United States Army) had worked with Eisenhower in the past and knew him to be a diplomatic man and excellent judge of character. When the time came for an American General to work alongside and coordinate with allies, Marshall knew who to send. General Marshall is criminally underrated in history, in my humble opinion.

In 1945 Churchill said of him: “Indomitable in retreat, invincible in advance, insufferable in victory.”

@onastick2411

7 ай бұрын

lol, that about sums him up.

@andrewdavid5928

6 ай бұрын

I give everyone an even shake, but 40 years of reading WWII history books has led me to one conclusion: Monty was an overrated stooge propped up for PR purposes.

@onastick2411

6 ай бұрын

@@andrewdavid5928 Well its an opinion I suppose. Shame you wasted 40 years, but that's life.

@andrewdavid5928

6 ай бұрын

@@onastick2411 Brits have always been an inbred lot of crown kissers and knee benders.

@primarilyprimate144

6 ай бұрын

​@onastick2411 A marginally competent, narcissistic prima donna. Whose lack of action and failures, probably prolonged the war by at least six months. In the end, no better than De Gaulle.

My WWII vet grandfather told me when I was a kid that Patton was a self aggrandizing prick. He said Monty was a condescending self aggrandizing prick. It drove me into a summer of reading that turned me in a history buff for life.

@johndawes9337

3 ай бұрын

so your grandpa met them both..what a lucky man

@SW-qr8qe

2 ай бұрын

@@johndawes9337 Meeting both would mean you were in the centre of war. Lucky would be meeting neither and being nowhere near war.

@SvenTviking

2 ай бұрын

Monty was only condescending to incompetent officers. He got on well with competent officers, “Lightning Joe” Collins for a start. Thing was, there were an awful number of incompetent officers.

@bigwoody4704

Ай бұрын

if that was true bernard would have been removed for yelling at himself. He should have been removed as he was the least essential, a positive impediment and a malevolent drag on American operations. Couldn't cross his crummy little channel until riding the GIs coattails. The Poor tommies deserved better

@bigwoody4704

Ай бұрын

so monty looked down on himself then? When the odds were even Gerry drove brooke and Bernard into the the channel.That they didn't cross for 4 FULL YEARS - thanx to the GIs. If he was a Patton or Zhukov he wouldn't have RUNAWAY into the desert. Cross the channel and ask the Euros - they saw it

If you put MacArthur, Montgomery, and Patton in a room together, their collective egos could probably bring down the entire building

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

9 ай бұрын

There's a story that Truman was in a conversation and Wake Island came up, which was where he had a meeting with MacArthur. Truman's comment was "Ah, Wake Island. That's where I met God." Quite similar to the anecdote about Monty, Churchill and King George.

@anondescriptbullet

9 ай бұрын

A little known fact is that MacArthur was actually forbidden from travelling on board any vessel smaller than a battleship. This is due to the fact that the overwhelming weight of his ego would cause any smaller ship to begin to sink.

@stoirmslw7195

9 ай бұрын

To my knowledge Patton and MacArthur got on very well if I’m remembering correctly they were in the same class at West Point and worked directly with each other in WWI

@spirz4557

9 ай бұрын

Some guy on Drachinifel's video on Admiral King joked about putting Monty, MacArthur, Beatty, Patton and King together in a lfe raft and you're stuck with them. For the sake of the scene, everyone has the same rank : Flag Officer. One replied they'd rather their chance in the water because too many egos. Another joked about shooting being on the table. Beatty and MacArthur end up with two bullets each, Patton and Monty one, and you'd en up with a slighty less angry King. Then a third added LeMay and Halsey into the mix... Which prompted a fourth to say that Halsey would somehow find a way to sail them into a typhoon.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

9 ай бұрын

@@spirz4557 Imagine a round table with MacArthur, Montgomery, Patton, De Gaulle, and Mark Clark.

I feel bad for Eisenhower after watching this, its like he was herding cats the whole time.

@arakheno4051

9 ай бұрын

That was exactly his job .. Supreme allied commander .. not American.. or anyone else.. Allied. I don't thinking anyone else could have done it half as well. He had to fight a war against the enemy and a battle against his commanders. He succeeded. uh-rah, I don't pity him.. but i couldnt do it. Credit where it's due eh ?

@scockery

9 ай бұрын

A curious analogy to use, as Eisenhower was well known as a cat-hater. He even had his groundskeepers kill them if they found them on his property. (I suspect it's because he knew cats were connected to the alien greys! LOL)

@Corristo89

9 ай бұрын

He had the rare skill of being able to get along with basically everybody and get them to work on a single project. People like Monty and Patton couldn't even agree on the time of day or the weather, so getting them to even vaguely work together when fighting the Germans was a miracle.

@nvelsen1975

9 ай бұрын

Imagine: Ducttape hadn't been invented yet, and Eisenhower had the mouths of both the moronic Patton and Montgomery to contend with.

@petestorz172

9 ай бұрын

Actually, duck tape had been created in the 1930s. That said, Ike would have needed a case or two of it every month.

Bradley: I'm resigning. Eisenhower: Good luck getting home.

You should do a video about in my opinion the best British commander of the WW2 Bill Slim. He waged war against the Japanese with a shoe string budget and an Army composed of different ethnicities and religions which was a nightmare for the quartermasters. He did with much support from Whitehall since it was regarded as backwater. Despite all the handicaps he was victorious over the Japanese army in India and Burma.

@scott2836

5 ай бұрын

Excellent suggestion. I have heard good things about his service but know next to nothing about him.

@paulgee8253

4 ай бұрын

And he took troops that had been badly whipped by the Japanese and turned them into winners.

@lyndoncmp5751

4 ай бұрын

It's all opinion who was the best. Different theatres, different enemies. There is no question, however, that Montgomery was the most successful. He took more ground through more countries winning more battles while facing more quality enemy units than any other.

@jacqueslefave4296

4 ай бұрын

Even many of the British resented him for taking all of the credit for Al-Alemaine, when in fact the Royal Air Force played a key role, without which victory would not have been possible. He didn't even mention them. Moreover, the Americans were not the only ones that resented his high handedness. If you think Patton resented him, he ignited incandescent rage in General DeGaulle, for whom Monty had little regard and didn't have enough sense to even pretend to respect him. It led to chilly relations between DeGaulle and Britain's chilly relations, and contributed to the French decision not to integrate their forces directly into NATO after the war.

@lyndoncmp5751

4 ай бұрын

@@jacqueslefave4296 1. Who told you Montgomery never mentioned the Royal Air Force? 2. Who cares about DeGaulle? Even Eisenhower couldn't stand DeGaulle.

I'm an American. It seems to me that Monty understood that while the Germans needed to win the war they had started, he only had to not lose it. He would attack a weakness that he saw, but otherwise he would prepare for the inevitable attack and how best to counterattack. Meanwhile, Patton was of the school that the judicious application of constant maximum aggression was the quickest way to victory. Neither was necessarily wrong, but seen this way, it is easy to understand their dislike of one another.

@TheIntelReport

9 ай бұрын

Underrated comment

@sid2112

9 ай бұрын

@@TheIntelReport Truly. However, I think that doctrine was flawed. The way to win is to.... if I might quote Heinlein... "We are the boys who will go to a particular place, at H-hour, occupy a designated terrain, stand on it, dig the enemy out of their holes, force them then and there to surrender or die. We're the bloody infantry, the doughboy, the duck foot, the foot soldier who goes where the enemy is and takes them on in person. We've been doing it, with changes in weapons but very little change in our trade, at least since the time five thousand years ago when the foot sloggers of Sargon the Great forced the Sumerians to cry Uncle." That's how you win wars. You Go to where they are and make them cry uncle.

@colindebourg9012

9 ай бұрын

With the huge resources available Patton in men and armour he could afford to make assaults that were costly in men and materials, Monty however used the limited resources he had as efficiently and effectively as possible, just a clash of personalities that's all.

@chrisanderson8207

9 ай бұрын

Monty was irrevocably shaped by his experiences in WWI which demonstrated to him that the only way forward was a detailed, coordinated and meticulous combined arms effort. Patton saw much less than a year of combat in WW1 - much of this during the 100 days which led him to believe in aggression and the attack to keep the enemy off balance and to work inside their OODA loop. I'd personally say that their approaches were irrevocably shaped by this difference of experience and that each has their strengths and weaknesses. However I would posit that seen 80 years later, in the context of the Ukraine/Russian war which is the closest analogue to WW1&2 since those wars, I'd say that Montgomery was the more correct of the two.

@johnburns4017

9 ай бұрын

Comparing Montgomery, a man over armies, with an average US general who never did much is ludicrous.

On the plus side, there was less infighting between the US and British Commanders then the Japanese Army and Japanese Navy Commanders.

@TheMagicalWizardPyro

9 ай бұрын

less assassinations lel

@baahcusegamer4530

9 ай бұрын

Indeed. Compared to the Imperial infighting, the allied commanders were practically bosom buddies. I’d no idea till this year how phenomenally bad the cooperation between the Japanese Navy and Army was

@robertoroberto9798

9 ай бұрын

@@baahcusegamer4530Gotta love having an Army make Aircraft Carriers because the Navy doesn’t want to support you.

@MikeJones-qn1gz

9 ай бұрын

Even Hitlers relationship with his army was better than that of the Japanese army and Navy.

@therealrakuster

9 ай бұрын

There was less fighting between US and British commanders in the American Revolution than between the IJN and IJA commanders during WW2

Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015 0:50 seconds in "were the germans afraid of general patton and everyone says you've got the movie, you've got a bridge too far, you've got the carlo deste biography, then harry yeide goes into the german archives about two years ago and discovers that most of the german generals have never heard of him, a big blow to the patton ego"

@thevillaaston7811

12 күн бұрын

Patton did not even rate a German dossier before D-Day.

British officer Derek Mills-Roberts beat the surrendered German Field-Marshal Milch's head in when he learned about the extent of atrocities being carried out. He reported to Montgomery to face a reprimand for his conduct, and when entering the office, Monty jokingly raised his hands over his head and said "I heard you have a thing about Field Marshals"

@6killer426

2 ай бұрын

Real act of courage on Derek Mills-Roberts part.

My father was a career U.S. Army officer. He served during WWII. He said of Montgomery that he would not move his army until he had every single gallon of gas and every tent stake he wanted.

@johndawes9337

9 ай бұрын

your dad speaks out of his arse then

@haroldflashman4687

9 ай бұрын

He was a master of the set-piece battle.

@johndawes9337

9 ай бұрын

@@haroldflashman4687 he did very well on the move as well as this gentleman points out,,,,,As Generalfeldmarschall Kesserling noted ‘even a victorious army cannot keep up a pursuit of thousands of miles in one rush; the stronger the army the greater the difficulty of supply. Previous British pursuits had broken down for the same reason.’ and rather admiringly pointed out, ‘the British Eighth Army had marched halfway across North Africa - and over fifteen hundred miles - had spent the bad winter months on the move and in the desert, and had had to surmount difficulties of every kind.’

@haroldflashman4687

9 ай бұрын

@@johndawes9337 In Africa, after El Alamein (which was a set piece battle) the German Army was too broken and defeated to offer much resistance, so it was no great accomplishment to keep moving against it. They were unable to offer coherent resistance.

@johndawes9337

9 ай бұрын

@@haroldflashman4687 no great accomplishment to chase a enemy over 1500 miles in 19 days against the weather and 7 battles on the way..go jump in the lake you sad fool next you will be saying patton was a great general.

Eisenhower had the patience of a Saint.

@stringpicker5468

4 ай бұрын

Yes he put up with Bradley's stupidity at the Bulge.

@brokenrecord3523

4 ай бұрын

It's hard to lead leaders. That skill is truly rare. Oppenheimer had it, early Reagan, Bush 1, Obama, but Trump tried to turn all his leaders into followers which leaves you with a staff that is either disgruntled or lackeys.

@ChadwickTheChad

3 ай бұрын

@@brokenrecord3523 Foreigners don't have opinions about the US. You know that.

@EnglishScripter

3 ай бұрын

He had to put up with the american generals.. going after big cities for popularity rather than following commands.

@Emil.Fontanot

3 ай бұрын

​@@EnglishScripter both Patton and Clark did that lol.

As much as Monty was an ash whole, at least Monty was with his armies. Charles DeGaulle spent the war sipping tea in the U.K. while Americans and Canadians died liberating France. Cowardly and arrogant was Charles DeGaulle.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

20 күн бұрын

Not to mention when France was reconquered, Degaulle then goes "France has been liberated by the French" he literally REFUSED to acknowledge the British, Americans, Canadians and Poles who had just spent 2 months fighting set piece battles to liberate the French.

@gilmangus83

20 күн бұрын

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Say it, brutha! Ike's and Monty's soldiers and many Canadians put their lives on the line so the vain and venal DeGaulle could march through the Arc de Triomphe as THE conquerer. Compared to DeGaulle, Monty was the personable and astute one. And where the hell were the French soldiers while my dad was being evacuated in 1944 from Brittany, France, with horrible wounds.

I always loved the episode where Eisenhower says, "You can't talk to me like that, I'm your boss", but in a calm voice, as if reminding him what day of the week it was. Generals become great by knowing which war they are fighting. Eisenhower knew which war he was fighting.

@kino6395

4 ай бұрын

That line just makes me respect Eisenhower so much. I don't believe he would have said anything like that to Pattern. Just Monty as he knew Monty didn't understand social ques, fantastic diplomat wearing generals stars. As someone who has dealt with people who are on the spectrum it's the best way to deal with them, don't yell just politely tell them to stop and they do so.

@6killer426

2 ай бұрын

Pore ol’ Kikenhower “The Terrible Swedish Jew”

@lyndoncmp5751

22 күн бұрын

Just a shame Eisenhower too Montgomery's job of C-in-C of all ground forces in September 1944 and then prolonged the war with his broad front strategy and decided to waste massive amounts of men and material in secondary campaigns such as the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace instead of concentrating his armies in the north.

In his personal diary, Chief of the Imperial Staff, General Sir Alan Brooke, wrote of Montgomery, “ he is liable to commit untold errors in lack of tact" and "I had to haul him over the coals for his usual lack of tact and egotistical outlook which prevented him from appreciating other people's feelings. “

@banzi403

9 ай бұрын

people were dying and yankee top brass were worried about their feelings of the generals

@johnfleet235

9 ай бұрын

Brooke should have enforced military discipline on Monty, but he failed to do so.

@GeneralCormy

9 ай бұрын

Sounds like pandering to woke Americans being and wanting tonkeep them happy with a participation medal to me

@nvelsen1975

9 ай бұрын

@@johnfleet235 Better yet, put Montgomery and Patton in a room, lock the door, let them eat eachother. Saves the allies one badly incompetent typewriter general who hated his own troops (Patton) and one decently-competent general who was a liability because of his interactions with other commanders.

@Mr.Paticles

9 ай бұрын

​@@nvelsen1975😂🤦 You should read more.

To be fair the Canadians hated him too. Because he wanted the resources for Market Garden the Canadians had to take a pause. This meant they got to invade Belgium after the Germans had a chance to fortify it for a month and meant they got to push on into the Netherlands in the middle of winter.

@captainvladmir7535

9 ай бұрын

Taking the Scheldt was utterly vital and Monty should've been sacked for prioritizing Market Garden over it. The Royal Navy straight up told him this.

@Litany_of_Fury

9 ай бұрын

It was 1 bridge too far. Almost successful.

@Novafire194

9 ай бұрын

As a Canadian? It depends. I have numerous relatives who fought under Monty, (one great grandpa fought under him from north Africa and ended in Italy. The other from Italy to France and into the Netherlands.) Many of them loved him because he made an effort to care about them and not throw their lives away. Montgomery was a person. A complicated and imperfect person. He had successes and his failures, just as every other commander. I personally like him and respect him, as he's (in a weird way) is the reason I exist today. But I understand why people don't like him.

@banzi403

9 ай бұрын

EXCUSE ME???? My dad was in the 1st Canadian parachute battalion. Him and his war buddies idolized monty.

@bigwoody4704

9 ай бұрын

Monty got 1100 airman and Paras - killed in one day crossing the Rhine - that was his bullshit excuse for not moving and showing the fact he really didn't have a clue. Monty cared so much at market garden that HE DIDN'T SHOW UP!!! 34,400 men go in 17,000 come out more monty fanboi baloney. Monty isn't the reason thousands of Tommies,Canucks and GIs are the reason

That's interesting. My grandad told me he bridged the Rhine under Montgomery's force (he was a sapper in the Royal Engineers) on their way to Berlin, where he was stationed by the end of the war. He told me this in around 1994/5 however and it was 50 years after the event, so likely his memory was failing him a bit. In any event, he had a dog called 'Monty' on account of Montgomery telling grandad what to do for several years and now it was grandad's turn to tell him what to do.

@ericlarson6390

8 ай бұрын

LOL... OFFICIALLY, Montgomery's forces did cross the Rhine first. Patton actually crossed the night before in order to take advantage of the cover of night, and was happy to have the OFFICIAL crossing as his misdirection-play. The Germans knew Montgomery was coming. How could they not with all the bridging equipment and troop build-up? I always thought that was a brilliant move on Patton's part.

@nickdanger3802

7 ай бұрын

@@ericlarson6390 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludendorff_Bridge#

@edopronk1303

7 ай бұрын

They did. It's an overlooked battle. I only now know the name of the parachute attack, Varsity. It was even bigger than Market from Market Garden.

@thevillaaston7811

3 ай бұрын

@@ericlarson6390 But Stupot 2030 has not claimed that Montgomery's forces did cross the Rhine first.

@thevillaaston7811

3 ай бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 CRUSADE IN EUROPE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER WILLIAM HEINEMANN LIMITED 1948 CHAPTER 22. P423 ‘Montgomery was always the master in the methodical preparation of forces for a formal, set piece attack. In this case he made the most meticulous preparations because we knew that along the front just north of the Ruhr the enemy had his best remaining troops including portions of the First Paratroop Army.’ P427 ‘The March 24 operation sealed the fate of Germany. Already, of course, we had secured two bridgeheads farther to the south. But in each of these cases surprise and good fortune had favoured us. The northern operation was made in the teeth of the greatest resistance the enemy could provide anywhere along the long river. Moreover, it was launched directly on the edge of the Ruhr and the successful landing on the eastern bank placed strong forces in position to deny the enemy use of significant portions of that great industrial area. IKE & MONTY: GENERALS AT WAR NORMAN GELB 1994 CONSTABLE AND COMPANY LIMITED 1994 CHAPTER 21. P406: ‘Montgomery wouldn’t hear of it. An early crossing did not fit the plan he had been devising with great thoroughness to meet all contingencies. The resourceful Germans had shown in the Ardennes that they were capable of the unexpected. Bradley, Patton and Hodges might have been willing to gamble and Montgomery was pleased that they had succeeded. But he was not interested in easy victories that might be of limited significance, and he did not believe they fully understood the risks they had taken or the extent of the far greater achievement he was aiming for. Risk-taking was for amateurs. The results of the first day of his massive Rhine-crossing operation demonstrated the value of doing things right - six divisions were firmly across the river at a cost of only 1,200 casualties’

People don't realize it's not so easy to switch off the thing that makes you an incredible battlefield commander. You are ALWAYS that person.

@scotty6glove

3 ай бұрын

What incredible battles did he win? I mean where he didn't have overwhelming material superiority. He 1) let Rommel escape halfway across Africa after El Alamein without making a serious effort to stop him; 2) Took 2 months to get out of the Normandy bridgehead, and only managed it then because the Americans broke through on his right and the Germans collapsed; and 3) Was the "mastermind" behind Operation Market Garden, the biggest (and only) disaster the Allies had in 1944. All while being completely full of himself. He doesn't even rank in the top 100 WWII generals imho.

@nobodynothing00000

3 ай бұрын

@@scotty6glove who the fuck asked you derp

@richardthelionheart6924

3 ай бұрын

@@scotty6glove He planned Operation Overlord oh and Market Garden was no where near as bad as the Hurtgen forest and lorraine campaigns

@scotty6glove

3 ай бұрын

@@richardthelionheart6924 "He planned Operation Overlord." lol you make it sound like he did it all himself, sitting at a desk with a map and a crayon. As for MG, HF, and LC, you're comparing things that took place over vastly different time frames. Per day of fighting, MG was easily the most costly in terms of Allied casaulties.

@jjock3239

3 ай бұрын

He was a lousy battlefield commander. Read a book by Corelli Barnett, called "The Desert Generals". The book, includes an update with the Ultra information and further analysis. He didn't know how use his armour at Alemain, and as a result, had a major failure to clear the mines during the battle, that almost caused the attack to fail. He also didn't complete the successes, and didn't capture Rommel after the breakthrough. As a result, he had to fight Rommel all the way to Tunisia.

"For Monty, this was a rare moment of self-reflection. 'So great were the feelings against me on the part of the American generals that whatever I said was bound to be wrong. I should therefore have said nothing.' " I don't believe this is self-reflection. I think this is Monty thinking that he said nothing wrong, at the press conference, and that it was just the Americans hating him. Not realizing that they were angry at him for minimizing their effort in stopping the German offensive and basically telling the press that is was him, British (and maybe Canadian, not sure what was actually said in the press conference), and US forces that stopped the Germans when it was mostly US infantry doing the fighting.

@Mrhalligan39

9 ай бұрын

Indeed. Presenting that quote in that manner as well as accepting Monty’s self-serving explanation of his failure to capture Caen or make Goodwood work makes me wonder if there is a Monty brand Kool-Aid that Intel Report’s been drinking.

@blue-pi2kt

9 ай бұрын

This is likely as close to apologies as Monty got and likewise with self reflection. I don't even think the Intel Report has been sippin' on the Monty juice. He was simply at his best overcoming finite circumstances as a group or division commander where his ever-rational operational approach eventually awarded him victory as he flexibly adapted to the circumstances in front of him. It is as a theatre commander leading grand strategy that his greatest weaknesses (unrestrained self-aggrandizement, inability to compromise and absolute commitment to his own correctness) are exposed and it greatly degrades his effectiveness as a military commander.

@scottjoseph9578

9 ай бұрын

@@blue-pi2kt Army Commander was where he was best. Monty could not work well with allies. Ultimately, Eisenhower was superb as a Theater Commander.

@0Zolrender0

9 ай бұрын

I am not justifying Monty here just adding a comment..... but the British feel at the time is that America was very late to the war and seemed to think it was winning it single handily. meanwhile the Brits had been at it for 3 years.

@johndoe-lp9my

9 ай бұрын

Yep, that's a perfect example of the standard _I'm sorry you were offended_ non-apology apology that only a complete dullard would accept.

I believe that "Here Montgomery displayed the characteristics that made him.... an insufferable person to work with," pretty much sums it up.

@nickjung7394

9 ай бұрын

Churchill said of Monty "wonderful to serve under.....impossible to command" or something like that!

@spm36

9 ай бұрын

Today monty would be on the autistic scale..hence his faux pars

@bobtudbury8505

9 ай бұрын

but knew his job

@lyndoncmp5751

9 ай бұрын

Most people under his command greatly liked and appreciated him. He really only rubbed up those on his level or above him.

@wout4yt

9 ай бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 Best sort of commander. imho

Yes even as a child he was rude. My mother was a Montgomery and met him once at a family gathering when she was a little girl. She remembered him as extremely rude.

When I heard your description of Montgomery’s lack of social graces, I thought,”That sounds like me.” I have high functioning autism.

@luckyguy600

22 күн бұрын

Maybe, but I like you! lol

Interesting presentation. Two comments. When I think about Monty, I cannot help but remember Winston Churchill's statement on Monty - "In defeat, unbeatable; in success, unbearable." Second, according to Cook (a very well-known Canadian historian who specializes on Canadian military history in 20th century), the major Canadian generals also could not stand Monty. The reason - he wanted to replace the Canadian commanding officers with his own British picks. He did not seem to understand that Canada at this time was no longer a British colony but a country and a major contributor to the efforts of the Allies. As for myself, after extensive reading, I am not a fan of Monty.

@csjrogerson2377

9 ай бұрын

Then I would suggest that you might not like some of the American Senior Officers, albeit for different reasons. At least Monty was an excellent planner (well, his staff were) and took great care to ensure he was properly prepared. This kept casualties to acceptable limits. Patton on the other hand...

@MrTexasDan

9 ай бұрын

@@csjrogerson2377 This is perhaps Monty's biggest failure .... the cautious advances to hold casualties to "acceptable limits", while Patton aggressively advanced. If there were some metric for measuring cost/benefit ... casualty per square mile taken or Allied casualty sustained vs. German casualty inflicted or something like that, I think you'd find that Patton was a far more successful battlefield general.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

9 ай бұрын

@@MrTexasDan While Patton was a good tank commander you cannot compare them. Between Monty and Patton... Monty commanded more men, was concerned with bigger issues, and achieved greater successes. Normandy was Monty's success, and the Allied armies attained the areas that Monty had made as objectives for the campaign 3 days sooner than had originally been intended. Patton, by contrast, never commanded anything more than an army and was much more of a tactical commander than a strategist. His greatest success is the rush from Normandy to Metz and the 90 degree wheel in the Bulge... but the former was against a German army that had already been beaten by the slogging match in the Normandy campaign and the latter was against the flank of a German attack that was beginning to run out of fuel and manpower. At Metz, where Patton faced a dug in and determined enemy... Patton was stopped dead by French and German made fortifications, some of which going all the way back to the 1800s.

@xchen3079

9 ай бұрын

​@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-Sure you can compare Monty with Patton because they are not the same level of IQ. Unfortunate to the Allies, they didn't put the battle general Patton as the supercommand but a political general. As for Monty he was Britain could offer at that time but complete incompetent since 1943.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

9 ай бұрын

@@xchen3079 No, you logically can't. One was an Army Group Commander the other was a 4 star general. Completely different levels. If you are going to compare it should be Bradley and Devers who were also on Montgomerys level as Army Group commanders.

After reading Rick Atkinson's work, it seems better to ask why Monty hated the Americans so much.

@CMAzeriah

9 ай бұрын

For goodness sakes. It doesn't matter who hated who. We were allies fighting an enemy who every day was killing more and more men, women, and children in those gas chambers. They were stopped and that's what matters.

@Shotty262

9 ай бұрын

@@CMAzeriahit’s a discussion worth having. Nobody is downplaying the United struggle against fascism.

@jbombs7511

9 ай бұрын

@@CMAzeriahyet Monty still made it a dick measuring contest😊

@williamchamberlain2263

9 ай бұрын

Turning up 2.5 years late probably didn't help

@jbombs7511

9 ай бұрын

@@williamchamberlain2263 ha y’all couldn’t hold out for that long with out American support

As an american, and having been a student of WW2, I would say that Montgomery was a brilliant but egotistical genius that came at the right time in history... I say this knowing that Patton was in that same boat.

@imnotgoodwithnamesbruh6018

7 ай бұрын

Patton and Monty deserved each other.

@johnhill7058

7 ай бұрын

Weak relativistic analysis, Mr. Davis. Patton has Metz, Montgomery has Market Garden, Sicily, and Falais to answer for. Ironlcally, one historian aptly commented that, after El Alamein, Monty would never risk his new found reputation by ever taking a risk again.

@stevendavis1243

7 ай бұрын

@johnhill7058 Slow your roll dude...Wasn't critiquing their military acumen. I was referring to them both being Prima Donna's,

@stevendavis1243

6 ай бұрын

@johnhill7058 Patton attack at Metz was fool hardy. Germans simply withdrew. Patton could have skirted metz and achieved the same strategic goal with fewer loss of men and material... Patton wasn't called blood and guts for nothing. Like Montgomery, ego gets in the way... How's that analysis

@jaydowling213

4 ай бұрын

I'd be curious to know what he ever did that was "brilliant. "

Montgomery was a vert very talented general and field Marshal….he was arrogant and verbally opinionated and that really got under Americans skin …….

Most of the senior staff of all the armies were somewhat self centered and unlikable.

@AnimeSunglasses

9 ай бұрын

I think it's more than all the dislikable ones were self-aggrandizing, and therefore seem to be a majority when they aren't really.

@thomasfsan

9 ай бұрын

We’re talking about posh Brit’s here.. Special category.

@scottjoseph9578

9 ай бұрын

Truscott wasn't bad. Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. WON AND EARNED an MOH. Alan Simpson was simply superb. MacArthur should have let Eichelberger go European, or Marshall should have overriden him. In short, there were ways to improve things.

@jf_knows_nothing

9 ай бұрын

Still are

@blue-pi2kt

9 ай бұрын

​@@scottjoseph9578Reaching the top of the armed services is exclusively reserved for two kinds of men, the sociopathically competitive and the pathetically obsequious.

god, imagine Patton and Monty in the same room.

@adambarache123

9 ай бұрын

the gravity of their egos combined might rival that of a black hole

@roberthudson1959

9 ай бұрын

It had to have happened occasionally.

@Corristo89

9 ай бұрын

It wouldn't surprise me that there were always several men on standby to disarm and subdue them in the case they started shooting at each other.

@johndawes9337

9 ай бұрын

they were good pals do not believe all the hollywood bs

@nvelsen1975

9 ай бұрын

If hate could be used as fuel, a locked room with the bullheaded idiot Patton and marshall Montgomery in it could've fueled the entire allied war effort. 😉

My old man joined the Tank Corp (or Royal Tank Regiment) 1938. He fought in France, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. He missed going to Normandy with the 7th Armoured due to catching malaria in Sicily, instead being flown back back to an Algerian hospital. When the US first turned up in Africa in 1942 there was general and mutual animosity between the British and American forces. I hope people reading this today can have the imagination to see why this might occur. As a youngster I took interest in WW2 and can still remember (in the 70's) my father making extremely disparaging remarks about US General Mark Clark. I sometimes wondered what side he fought on when he spoke of certain American officers.

@margaretjiantonio939

7 ай бұрын

It would've been great if the British and Americans realized that they were fighting the Germans and Italians, not each other.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

7 ай бұрын

@@margaretjiantonio939 That's why it's a good job that Ike was overseeing the Allies as supreme commander, he was the only man who could prevent the alliance breaking down between the Brits, Americans and French.

@user-xy9ix8jm1k

4 ай бұрын

Well, General Mark Clark is probably the worst American General of WWII. If I were there, accepting any orders from him, I might wonder which side I was on also.

@davidelliott5843

4 ай бұрын

Mark Clark absolutely ruined the Allies chances in Italy by wasting time at Anzio giving Germany ample time to box them in.

@89RealThe

4 ай бұрын

Mark Clark was given the nickname "Marcus Clarkus" among some of his officers and detractors due to his own ego

He was slow but methodical and he back his men to the hilt to get the job done. He was arrogant but who wasnt in authority lol😂

If we are honest, Monty and Patton were both really difficult egotistical glory-grabbers & nightmares to control, but as Churchill famously said: "Nice men do NOT win wars..."

@origamiscienceguy6658

9 ай бұрын

And then there was MacArthur...

@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab

9 ай бұрын

@@origamiscienceguy6658 Oh yes, another difficult, brutal character, - I forgot him!

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

9 ай бұрын

And then there was Markus Aurelius Clarkus. 😂

@Chungus581

9 ай бұрын

Patton didn’t fuck over the war effort or lead men into massacres though. You can be an asshole if you’re successful

@MrJinglejanglejingle

9 ай бұрын

@@origamiscienceguy6658 I mean... At least he was more effective than any of the others, despite him being such a bastard.

An American officer was a guest a British Army mess, offered a pre-dinner drink, he requested a martini. The barman asked what kind and the American looked confused. The barman explained: Wet, 4 parts gin to one part vermouth, Dry, 8 to 1, very dry, 12 to 1 and a Montgomery, 15 to 1 and demanding more gin.

@thevillaaston7811

9 ай бұрын

Not really...

@lyndoncmp5751

9 ай бұрын

Sorry, don't get it.

@johngregg5735

9 ай бұрын

Monty always wanted more men and supplies. Hence the 15 and more @@lyndoncmp5751

@jonesukanaivalu9221

9 ай бұрын

😂 good one

@bushyfromoz8834

9 ай бұрын

Strange joke seeing Montgomery was a famous tea-totaller. They had a body double for him as part of the disinformation campaign leading upto Overlord but had to stop using him because he got publicly drunk and blew his own cover.

Because he showed them up.

There were a lot of terrible, terrible National Guard political generals and officers in FDR's 'Instant Army.' As low as the British cut their strength after WW1, they at least needed an army for the Empire and so retained a reasonably large and ready force with a very good training establishment led by real professionals. The US had little need for an army until it suddenly did and when that happened it had very few real leaders in uniform. I expect that Montgomery had little tolerance for amateurs fumbling about and finding out the hard way.

Looking at this from a European perspective, I grow ever more appreciative of having a man such as Dwight Eisenhower in command. I also agree with the sentiment that Montgomery may actually have been on the spectrum. It would explain his lack of tact and certain parts of his personality.

@knightblade0188

9 ай бұрын

Without Eisenhower we’d have probably lost the war in the west.

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

9 ай бұрын

@@knightblade0188 Thankfully Marshal was a good judge of character and ability and FDR backed him. It was the US part of the Supreme allied command that finally insisted on invading France in 44 instead of letting Churchill talk them into invading Greece.

@knightblade0188

9 ай бұрын

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j sadly many British hate Eisenhower and still try to discredit him.

@krashd

9 ай бұрын

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j The US part of the SAC also insisted on invading France in 1941 with Ike and Monty having to convince them that it would be suicide.

@krashd

9 ай бұрын

@@knightblade0188 I've never met a single Brit with anything bad to say about Ike.

Eisenhower did NOT decide to placate Montgomery by promoting him to Field Marshall. Ike (4 star US general) had no means to promote Monty (5 star British marshal) that was strictly a British (Churchill, Brooke, etc) decision. Led to Ike getting promoted in December.

@davidmcintyre998

9 ай бұрын

Yes i noticed that error and the Film about Patton implies Patton was badly treated in the sense of honours perhaps but maybe had he not sadly lost his life so soon after the war things would have been different. Montgomery compared to many victorious British commanders was not rewarded well at all, what can these people do Montgomery went on to be CIGS but after that work in Woolworths no the House of Lords is the retirement centre for the luminarty of the UK and this has reached staggering levels in 2023.

@RRaquello

9 ай бұрын

Of course Eisenhower couldn't directly promote Montgomery, but it's implied that he could use his influence to get Montgomery a promotion. I don't know the inside history of the British military during the war, but it's easy enough to imagine Eisenhower suggesting to Churchill (and they were pretty much in constant communication) that it would be a good thing for Montgomery to be promoted to Field Marshal and that Churchill would put the promotion through. From the reactions quoted from both British and American officers in the documentary, it seems pretty clear that this is what happened.

@BarthCrane

9 ай бұрын

@@RRaquello Not really. Especially the British press had been playing up Montgomery (with his support) as a British hero, basically since El Alamein. When Eisenhower took over as Supreme commander allied forces in Europe, and also took over Montgomery role since Normandy of leading the ground forces, Montgomery resisted (quite a lot actually), while the British press saw it as a demotion for Montgomery, a snub to not only their hero, but also of Britain as a nation at arms. Montgomery tacitly supported this narrative. Churchill (always sensitive to public opinion) sought to address this by making Montgomery a Field Marshall, thereby placating the press, as well as public opinion (Eisenhower would be made 5-star general soon after, so that he would still at least be on the same rank). Eisenhower didn't think it a good idea when it was first proposed, but understood the political imperative in Britain, and was politically savvy enough to keep well out of it. Perhaps because he suspected he'd personally benefit from it not much later. But it certainly wasn't his suggestion to Churchill. Nor, frankly, could (or would) he have made the suggestion, as he had very little influence in Britain to have it go either way. It is notable that many of the top brass in Britain thought it a bad idea as well. According to his diaries, not even Brooke (essentially Montgomery's mentor and supporter since Dunkirk) was entirely sold on the idea. But In the end, it was primarily Churchill's idea, and he was PM.

@RRaquello

9 ай бұрын

@@BarthCrane I've read the big diary on the other side, that of Eisenhower's Naval Aid (Harry Butcher) which was basically Ike's semi-official daily record of war operations. If you haven't looked at it it's very interesting. The influence of Ike on British policies (from what I read in that book) was an odd one. He was very friendly with Churchill and had the best personal relations with him, but he could influence Churchill's actions simply by refusing to go along with them when he disagreed knowing that in his refusals he'd be backed by Roosevelt, really meaning General Marshall who was running the war with Roosevelt more or less a figurehead. Churchill was shrewd enough not to push matters far enough to come to a showdown. When Ike stuck to a point, Churchill would eventually back down. This is where people like Eisenhower, Churchill and Marshall are clearly superior to the Montgomerys and Pattons--their ability to see beyond their own local interests. Churchill and Marshall knew, and Churchill was willing to acknowledge, the fact that there was no way on earth that the American people, supplying 2/3rds-to-3/4ths of the troops on the Western Front, would accept being under a foreign commander. We had done that in the First World War, Pershing serving under Foch, with disastrous results as far as casualties were concerned. In that war, in the short time we were in it, and the small amount of the front we had taken over, the AEF became cannon fodder for French Generals the way French soldiers had been at Verdun and throughout the war. They wore their own soldiers out and couldn't wait to use our boys the same way. Montgomery wasn't that type of general but the overall commander in the west was always going to be an American. It could be no other way. Churchill knew it and even Montgomery knew it and accepted it, if grudgingly. One last thing, in the Butcher diary, which was largely a recording of Ike's views, I think Ike was mostly friendly to Montgomery. He had his frustrations with him but no more so than with some American generals and certainly a lot less than in dealing with the French. The French, even when the other allies were fighting to save their lives, were more interested in fighting with each other, or in collaborating with the Germans. They could never be trusted. Montgomery was a good soldier even if he was hard to get along with, and he at least knew who the enemy was and put his energies into fighting them instead of his allies.

@BarthCrane

9 ай бұрын

@@RRaquello I have not read Harry Butcher diary, but now I probably will. Having read your reply, and do agree with almost all of it, and where I don't, I'd be quibbling to mention it. That is to say; it doesn't really matter. So, I do agree, the land forces commander, after Overlord, did, certainly politically, have to be an American, for the reasons given. I don't dispute that, because there was simply no other way. And in that sense, Beaverbrook's et al. campaign in the UK press was nonsensical. But that still left Churchill in a bind. Wanting to keep the UK press 'on side', he had to come up with something to placate them, as well as the riled up UK public. Promoting Monty to Field Marshall was what he came up with. It made Monty superior in rank to Eisenhower (at least for a bit), while still under Eisenhower's command. And, to be fair, it worked as well (again, for a bit, until the UK press started agitating again during the Bulge). There are no sources, that I am aware of at least, that suggest that either Eisenhower, Marshall, or, indeed, Roosevelt had any hand in that decision, while the King's true opinion (who devolves this down to HMG and, ultimately, parliament) we will probably never know (as is only right and proper, obviously). Nor am I aware of any sources that suggest that they tried to influence it either before or while it was made. Although afterward, they did respond by giving Eisenhower an extra star on his shoulders. As such, I maintain that neither Eisenhower nor indeed any American, used, would use, or even could use, their influence to give Monty his batons, and that any implication to the contrary is quite out of place. Given what I do know, and have read about both the British and the US side of things during this period, I find it very hard to imagine someone as politically astute as Eisenhower to so clearly overstepping (political) boundaries to suggest this to Churchill, let alone exerting influence to make it happen. Neither Eisenhower nor Churchill had the personalities or relationship for this to happen in this way. In the UK, certainly at that time, such interference with, essentially, UK domestic politics would simply not have been cricket, and surely both Eisenhower and Churchill would have been well aware of that. I doubt even Marshall or Roosevelt would have gone down that road. Indeed, I doubt even Brooke has much to do with it, and that's saying something!

"After the failure of the operation, Montgomery began to question the strategy developed by Eisenhower and as a result of comments made at a press conference he gave on 7th January, 1945, he was severely rebuked by Winston Churchill and General Alan Brooke, the head of the British Army. Although he came close to being sacked, Montgomery was allowed to remain in Europe and the end of the war was appointed Commander in Chief of the British Army of Occupation." Bernard Montgomery Jewish Virtual Library

@johndawes9337

6 ай бұрын

what operation?

@thevillaaston7811

6 ай бұрын

Montgomery 7th January, 1945, Press Conference: This from one of Montgomery’s harshest critics: WITH PREJUDICE The War Memoirs of Marshall of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder G.C.B. CASSELL & COMPANY 1966 P 636- 637 ‘In a press conference given on 7 January, Montgomery described how Eisenhower had placed him in command of the whole northern front. He emphasized that the repulse of the German onslaught had been an Anglo-American effort, but somewhat unfortunately went on to describe the battle as ‘most interesting. I think, possibly, one of the most interesting and tricky battles I have ever handled, with great issues at stake.’ Montgomery expressed his admiration for the fighting qualities of the American soldier and how grieved he was to see uncomplimentary articles about Eisenhower in the British Press. However, the subsequent handling of Montgomery’s statements by the British newspapers and by the B.B.C. caused a crisis. The Prime Minister telephoned several times to Eisenhower, who said that Bradley was most upset. He proposed to award the Bronze Star to Bradley with a citation drawing attention to his fighting qualities, and to the work of the American armies bearing the brunt of the German offensive. At a meeting on 9 January, the Supreme Commander remarked that censorship was a two-edged weapon. Anything withheld by the censors immediately acquired news value, and the Press, by inuendo or other means, invariably circumvented it. It seemed to him that he reaction of the American Press to the statements in the British newspapers would be to exaggerate the United States point of view. There would be no end to the statements which the Press of the two countries would make in reply to each other. He also remarked: ‘For two and a half years I have been trying to get the Press to talk of “Allied” operations, but look what has happened.’ ‘When de Guingand saw the British reporters in Brussels on 9 January, they were able to prove to him that their articles had given a balanced view of the picture, but that their editors had been responsible for the flaming headlines which told the British public that Montgomery had defeated the Germans in the salient. It was also learned that the radio station at Arnhem, then in German hands, had intercepted some of the despatches and had re-written them with an anti-American slant. They had been put out and mistaken for BBC broadcasts.’ And this from a reporter at the press conference: CHESTER WILMOT THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE WM. COLLINS, SONS AND CO LTD. 1954 P683 My dispatch to the B.B.C. was picked up in Germany, rewritten to give it an anti-American bias and then broadcast by Arnhem Radio, which was then in Goebbels's hands. Monitored at Bradley's H.Q., this broadcast was mistaken for a B.B.C. transmission and it was this twisted text that started the uproar. Stil... You have the Jewish Virtual Library behind you...crucial.

You call out Monty for rudeness and arrogance but Patton is right there.

@trikstari7687

4 ай бұрын

Patton was competent at his job and didn't tolerate bullshit. No wonder the Brits didn't like him.

@codytimmons276

4 ай бұрын

well duh. thats generally what men of that mindset do. Hard to get two Grizzlies in a cage and not expect a fight. but damn I'm glad we had them both.

@ronryan7398

4 ай бұрын

Difference is that Patton won battles.

@FakeSchrodingersCat

4 ай бұрын

@@ronryan7398 So not much difference? I mean Montgomery won most of his battles. He just knew that sometimes caution or even retreat was the correct order, rather then throwing away 700 of his own men attacking a strategically unimportant heavily fortified position while low on supplies in a frontal assault straight out of WW1's playbook which is more then can be said for Patton.

@marley7868

4 ай бұрын

he called patton vain in the middle of a talk on monty give it time and thhat's more than good enough for now taking time to point that out in a focused talk of monty is both warranted and fair pointing out pattons flaws does not forgive your own

When serving in the RAMC I had the privilege of meeting Field Marshall Montgomery on several occasions in his own home. He wasn’t in good health and needed home care. I spent hours sat next to him whilst he spoke of his experiences. For me it was an honour to be in his company and I will never forget the experience

@chapman9230

7 ай бұрын

I would have loved to have met him!

@dennishoffman1218

7 ай бұрын

If I was in his command I would have gone AWOl.

@danielcharnock8975

7 ай бұрын

​@@dennishoffman1218it's a good job you never served then.

@bigwoody4704

5 ай бұрын

@@dennishoffman1218 yup an uppity little nothing that only prolonged the war because IKE out of favor to Churchill gave him a long leash.But Churchill in his memoirs admitted this mistake that he regretted

@Michael.Talbot

4 ай бұрын

@@dennishoffman1218 You would of gone AWOL regardless.

Would have been interesting to lock Monty, Patton and Charles De Gualle in a small room and watch the fireworks erupt. :)

@themastermason1

9 ай бұрын

Monty would go down first. Patton is the human equivalent of a rabid dog and De Gaulle has the benefit of long arms.

@Samm815

9 ай бұрын

Throw in MacArthur and we have a battle royale.

@mwhyte1979

9 ай бұрын

@@Samm815 nice! I completely forgot about good ole Doug. The room would probably explode from the pressures of the competing egos.

@JD-tn5lz

9 ай бұрын

Yep, Patton was a warrior first and a soldier second. That's a man who just likes killin'

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

9 ай бұрын

Don't forget to add Mark Clark and Macathur.

Eisenhower was the perfect man to be supreme commander, as history proved. Patton, Montgomery and the other girls did their jobs, but, by Jove, they seem to have been fond of themselves.

In North Africa, Monty did force Rommel into a retreat, but he only initiated his offensive after he had a 3 to 1 advantage in soldiers and 6 to 1 advantage in Armor. Giving Monty credit for being a battlefield genius, ignores the fact that Rommel had a much weaker force, including over 50% Italian troops, less capable armor and was dealing with a strangled supply line across the Med, especially fuel for his armor. Monty was not a 'superior' General to Rommel or indeed Patton. At Normandy, he said he'd take Caen in 3 days, weeks later, he still hadn't taken it.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

7 ай бұрын

@Wraith1959 "he said he'd take Caen in 3 days, weeks later, he still hadn't taken it." Just as Patton said he'd breach Metz in 2 weeks, it took him 3 MONTHS. And the reason Caen wasn't taken early, is because the Germans moved upwards of 8 SS Panzer divisions, 7 infantry divisions and 3 Tiger detachments to hold it. Do you honestly think going up against 600 German Tanks and Waffen SS troops is going to be a walk in the park?

@johndawes9337

7 ай бұрын

WRONG:::axis troops..116,000 547 tanks 192 armoured cars 770- 900 aircraft 552 artillery pieces 496 - 1,063 anti-tank....common wealth troops...195,000 1,029 tanks 435 armoured cars 730 - 750 aircraft 892 - 908 artillery guns 1,451 anti-tank guns...now do i take your word regarding how Monty did against Rommel or this man.... As Generalfeldmarschall Kesserling noted ‘even a victorious army cannot keep up a pursuit of thousands of miles in one rush; the stronger the army the greater the difficulty of supply. Previous British pursuits had broken down for the same reason.’ and rather admiringly pointed out, ‘the British Eighth Army had marched halfway across North Africa - and over fifteen hundred miles - had spent the bad winter months on the move and in the desert, and had had to surmount difficulties of every kind.’...as for Caen Monty was facing 80% of the enemy armour that kind of slows things up now i could mention St Lo that the US troops were meant to take D DAY +5 but it was early aug before it was, any idea why? as for patton being a better general i think you should look at Metz and task force Baum and after you have tell me the battles patton won.

@jwilli6

4 ай бұрын

You act as thought waiting for numerical superiority is a bad thing. Rommel was a good general, and he was soundly beaten by another. Just another Nazi general, after all, certainly no one to idolize.

@thevillaaston7811

3 ай бұрын

'3 to 1 advantage in soldiers and 6 to 1 advantage in Armor.' Its a definite no.

@lukedelport8231

3 ай бұрын

The British army in North Africa had its moral shot threw Monty needed to rebuild the army in both spirit and hard wears, the force was using outdated equipment and most men had not been rotated out of the theatre. The man took an all but broken force and turned it into an incredibly dangerous force and that numbers advantage came from him not wasting his men on reckless advances but rather beating his adversary at their own game

It's interesting that Monty was so disliked by his equals, as there's stories that he was well liked by his juniors. There's one particular story which may be apocryphal but still illustrates the point: Monty was discussing discipline in the ranks with a very straight-laced general and Monty was pointing out how there's more to discipline than just obeying "form and presentation". Monty stated that one time, a private had come running across the battleground toward him, yelling out, "Duck, Monty! Duck!" The very prim and proper general responded: "Good Heavens! You court-martialled him, I suppose?" Monty replied, dryly: "No. I ducked. And the shell missed me."

@bigwoody4704

9 ай бұрын

He liked the juniors alright read THE FULL MONTY

@chrisblake4198

9 ай бұрын

He was disliked by his equals because he could never treat them like equals. These were all educated and motivated men, brought together to do something historic, and all too often Monty undermined it by his insistence that his contributions/ideas/results were de facto the best and nothing anyone else had to say really mattered. He was more than happy to accept and promote the work of others up until it looked like they wanted to step on that last step along with him, or surpass him.

@bigwoody4704

9 ай бұрын

He was an unhinged halwit and if the war went on any longer IKE would have had him removed

@CC-uq4hu

8 ай бұрын

My father was British SAS, close to Monty…we had a pair of his leather gloves. He was respected and loved by his men.

@bigwoody4704

8 ай бұрын

I'm sure all of that is true - of course it is. Britain had much better Generals - MUCH.The twisted tart shat on any body he thought would get praise besides him Three distinguished British officers who fought in Holland that winter and later became army commanders believed that the Allied cause could have profited immeasurably from giving a more important role to Patton. - *Lieutenant Edwin Bramall* said: “I wonder if it would have taken so long if Patton or Rommel had been commanding.”* - *Captain David Fraser* believed that the northern axis of advance was always hopeless, because the terrain made progress so difficult. He suggests: “We might have won in 1944 if Eisenhower had reinforced Patton. Patton was a real doer. There were bigger hills further south, but fewer rivers.” - *Brigadier Michael Carver* argued that Montgomery’s single thrust could never have worked: “Patton’s army should have been leading the U.S. 12th Army Group.” Such speculations can never be tested, but it seems noteworthy that two British officers who later became field-marshals and another who became a senior general believed afterwards that the American front against Germany in the winter of 1944 offered far greater possibilities than that of the British in Holland, for which Montgomery continued to cherish such hopes. *Freddie de Guingand, Montgomery’s Chief of Staff* confided to Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay on 28 November (according to the admiral’s diary) that he was “rather depressed at the state of the war in the west . . . the SHAEF plan had achieved nothing beyond killing and capturing a some Germans, and that we were no nearer to knocking out Germany.” *Between the beginning of November and mid-December 1944, British Second Army advanced just ten miles.* *Arnhem,Jumping the Rhine in 1944 and 1945. By Lloyd Clark, page 333 Tom Hoare* who fought with the 3rd Para at Arnhem may be said to reflect a commonly held perception of OMG, (or Field Marshall Montgomery’s fiasco,as he calls it) when he writes: *'It is my opinion that Monty was a great soldier, but he had a even greater ego. When victory was in sight for the Allies, he degenerated into nothing more than a glory seeker. With little regard for the welfare or indeed the lives of his men of the British 1st Airborne Division, he threw the division away in an insane attempt to go down in history as the greatest military leader of the Second World War.’* *Armageddon - The Battle for Germany,1944-45 by Max Hastings,page 50 Jack Reynolds and his unit,the South Staffords* were locked into the long,messy,bloody battle.There was no continuous front,no coherent plan,merely a series of uncoordinated collisions between rival forces in woods,fields,gardens and streets. *That is when it got home to me.What a very bad operation this was The scale dropped from my eyes when I realized just how far from our objective we've landed* *As Bob Peatling of the 2 Para said "Marshall Montgomery dropped a clanger at Arnhem"* Léo Major: The "One-Eyed Ghost" Who Single-Handedly Liberated a Dutch Town "He had made an awful mistake. I didn't like him at all." Leo Major, the most decorated Canadian soldier of WWII Losing an eye soon after D-Day, Major refused repatriation. He only needed one eye, he said, to aim his rifle. During the Battle of the Scheldt in occupied Holland, he was recommended for a DCM for a solo recon mission, from which he returned with 93 German prisoners. *Major refused it because the medal would be awarded by Field Marshal Montgomery, whom he despised His reason was simple: Arnhem.* Major felt Monty’s ill-fated airborne assault stopped Allied forces attacking on a broad front, delaying the liberation of Holland. Major believed Monty to be responsible for the deaths of some 20,000 Dutch citizens during 1944’s “hunger winter”. To quote Major exactly, “He had made an awful mistake. I didn’t like him at all.” Strong words, especially regarding a military megastar like Monty. This might also explain Major never being promoted above Corporal.

When you deal with any group project, you have to be careful taking more credit than you're owed. I think that's the chief lesson learned from the scrap between Monty and his American counter-parts

I used to work with an old gent who told me proudly that he had shaken hands with Monty. I am not sure if this was in Italy where my co-worker was in the Canadian tanks or at the end of the war when he was sprung from a PoW camp.

If you read what Monty actually said in his memoirs it is less controversial than one expects from the publicity; he rightly claimed that he never criticised Ike, he merely said disagreed with him sometimes and would have done some significant things differently. Junior officers are supposed to argue with their superiors how else are ifs but and maybes considered. I suspect Ike forgave him because it came from a greater experience of battlefield command and, whatever the handbagging between the rival allied generals, Monty got results. Whatever personal ill will there might habe been, it is worth remembering that the Americans, and especially President Ike trusted Monty long after the war, no one else could have been such and effective officer at Nato in the late 40s and early 50s.

Narrator hit it. "His shameless and egoistical manner". No one likes a braggart or "know it all".

@josephberrie9550

9 ай бұрын

they do if he is successful monty wasnt always succssesful and he made excuses for his failures that nobody believed

Monty was his own worst enemy. Having to control both him and Patton must have been a real challenge for Ike. But perhaps we need people like that to win wars?

@johnburns4017

8 ай бұрын

Monty should have been left in command of all ground forces after Normandy. On 3 Sept 1944 when Eisenhower took over overall allied command of ground forces everything went at a snail's pace. The fastest advance of any western army in Autumn/early 1945 was the 60 mile thrust by the British XXX Corps to the Rhine at Arnhem.

@samgraham9235

8 ай бұрын

@@johnburns4017 Agreed. But a General's biggest enemy is politics. Can you imagine what would have happened of John Wayne had not been allowed to win the war?

@johnburns4017

8 ай бұрын

@@samgraham9235 Eisenhower was a politician not a warrier. Monty should have been left in charge while he talks to Chiefs of Staff and political leaders. It was too much for him and he just was not good enough for ground command as the results showed. Montgomery to AlanBrooke.. _"If we want the war to end within any reasonable period you have to get Eisenhower’s hand taken off the land battle._ *_I regret to say that in my opinion he just doesn’t know what he is doing._* Montgomery wrote of Eisenhower and his ridiculous broad-front strategy on 22 January 1945: _“I fear that the old snags of indecision and vacillation and refusal to consider the military problem fairly and squarely are coming to the front again . . . The real trouble is that there is no control and the three army groups are each intent on their own affairs. Patton today issued a stirring order to Third Army, saying the next step would be Cologne . . . One has to preserve a sense of humour these days, otherwise one would go mad.”_ Alanbrooke wrote in his diary about Einsenhower: _“At the end of this morning's C.O.S. [Chief of Staff] meeting I put before the committee my views on the very unsatisfactory state of affairs in France, with no one running the land battle. Eisenhower, though supposed to be doing so, is on the golf links at Rheims_ *_- entirely detached and taking practically no part in running of the war._* _Matters got so bad lately that a deputation of Whiteley, Bedell Smith and a few others went up to tell him that he must get down to it and RUN the war, which he said he would."_ _"We discussed the advisability of getting Marshall to come out to discuss the matter, but we are doubtful if he would appreciate the situation. Finally decided that I am to see the P.M. to discuss the situation with him.”_ _"November 28th I went to see the P.M. I told him I was very worried."_ Alan Brooke described in his daily diary that American generals Eisenhower and Marshall as poor strategists, when they were in jobs were strategy mattered. Brooke wrote to Montgomery about his talks with Eisenhower, *_“it is equally clear that Ike has the very vaguest conception of war!”_*

@casedismissed8581

6 ай бұрын

@@samgraham9235 HAHAHAHAHA another delusional limey!! it's painfully obvious that the sons of "britannia's" greatest asset is their ability to bulls**t themselves !

@VariaBug

5 ай бұрын

I mean, when you have men with thousands upon thousands of lives in the palms of their hands with the liberation of Europe at stake. You need to be a confident asshole to pull that kind of weight and to make extremely tough decisions that a normal person wouldn't.

My father fought under Monty . He told me Monty looked after his men .

@skepticalobserver2135

3 ай бұрын

An admirable quality most likely brought on by his experiences in World War I and the extensive losses of a generation in the trenches.

@skepticalobserver2135

3 ай бұрын

An admirable quality most likely brought on by his experiences in World War I and the extensive losses of a generation in the trenches.

@luckyguy600

22 күн бұрын

especially his 'bat boy' read the book on him "Monty"

Monty was committed to his men. My taid served in the 8th Army and drove Monty on occasion, and he revered him. He turned Auch's army into a winning one. And he was far more flexible and on the money than history has given him credit for. I suspect we like the drama of the big personalities, and we know Monty didn't help himself there - but he was absolutely the man we needed, when we neede him. That cant be knocked.

I doubt it was the lack of a free lunch that had Patton angry with Montgomery.

@mattbowden4996

9 ай бұрын

I wouldn't be so sure. Patton was famously vain and well known for holding completely irrational grudges.

@Bob.W.

9 ай бұрын

@@mattbowden4996 lol, just substitute Monty for Patton on your comment. Two peas in a pod.

@mattbowden4996

9 ай бұрын

@Bob.W. I don't disagree at all, but Monty's vanity isn't in dispute here.

@thevillaaston7811

9 ай бұрын

'I doubt it was the lack of a free lunch that had Patton angry with Montgomery.' More likely, Montgomery was in the way of Patton's personal ambitions.

@lyndoncmp5751

9 ай бұрын

@Bob.W Ironically, Monty didn't have a problem with Patton. He seems to have liked and respected him. Montgomery never said or wrote a bad word about Patton. In Sicily, Monty wished Patton's soldier slapping incidents to be kept quiet, while in the Bulge Montgomery told Eisenhower he should send for Patton to relieve Bastogne (unaware that Eisenhower had already thought of that).

I think Monty's biggest problem was his lack of tact, and being totally oblivious to that lack. His ego was no worse than other genrals like Clark, MacArthur, and Patton. Hell, both Patton and Monty gave Gen Bradley cussing fits, and Bradley was probally the most even tempered next to Ike.

@sumivescent

9 ай бұрын

Bradley was actually quite a jingoistic primadonna in the mold of Patton, throwing fits since Tunisia. After Ardennes even his relationship with Eisenhower soured.

@twolak1972

9 ай бұрын

Because Montgomery was a ego maniac. Everything was about him getting the credit. I did this I won this battle when in reality. PATTON, MC Arthur, Monty and Bradley sat back and watched their men win it but they immediately took the credit. F*****G GENERALS, AS WORTHLESS AS TITS ON A BOAR PIG.

@RRaquello

9 ай бұрын

@@sumivescent Bradley had a great press agent in Ernie Pyle, who loved him and whose syndicated newspaper column pretty much set Bradley's image in the minds of the American people. That's how he came to be known as the "GI's general".

@giantgeoff

9 ай бұрын

You do realize that prewar the three of them were very close friends. There has a book written about it. If my age addled brain doesn't fail me The relatively independently wealthy Patton was assigned with Eisenhower to some very substandard Married Officers Quarters he financed their mutual renovation which was beyond Ike's meager resources.

@sirosis7858

9 ай бұрын

Monty was trash, and worse than every single general you mentioned.

I think today he would be diagnosed as austic with Asperger's syndrome. He didnt have an ego like Patton but just had no filter, if he thought them incompetent he just told them and that never goes down well.

@morganrees3603

6 күн бұрын

The ironic thing is that no army would allow monty to serve today if he was diagnosed

Is it that unusual for allies to dislike genersls from other countries. Monty polarised opinion in the same way Patton did. Ultimately it doesnt matter if senior officers are liked or not but what outcomes they can provide

I'd read somewhere that he was possibly on the Spectrum too, and honestly with him being utterly clueless on social clues etc that does sound like he might have been somewhat autistic or have aspergers, of course it wouldn't have been recognised as such at the time. I recall reading that him being criticized for being 'timid' was due to his preference for bite and hold advances and rotating armoured forces off the line to rest, recover and repair once their job was done, which was in stark contrast to the US doctrine and their staff college training preference for sweeping advances and thrusts with armoured forces. Also in his defence, Monty wasn't willing to spend the lives of his men needlessly, and he knew the UK by 44 was reaching the end of its strategic rope in terms of manpower and money. A decent General but a bloody nightmare to work with.

My grandpa didn't hate Monty, but he sure didn't like him because of Market Garden.

@EvilClowns69

9 ай бұрын

Same I was was always told that in Italy Monty was to slow and calculating which allowed German forces to slip away and that Patton wanted to move fast to stop the Germans from retreating.

@robertpalmer3235

9 ай бұрын

Don't see why, since Monty didn't plan or participate in operation Market Garden. Maybe he should have put his dislike towards people that planned it Brereton and Williams, or maybe the person that insisted on it Ike, or even the person that stuffed it up like Gavin

@robertpalmer3235

9 ай бұрын

Well the people that told you that were wrong. You seem to have fallen down the myth pit.

@I_Art_Laughing

9 ай бұрын

​@robertpalmer3235 Yeah, better yet, you should have fought the war you deserved after the Balfour Declaration and Versailles on your own.

@JayM409

9 ай бұрын

Market Garden failed because Gavin forgot what his mission was. He failed to capture Nijmegan when he had the chance and to keep the highway clear.

We could have done a lot worse than Monty.

It's safe to say that all the allied generals were a bit full of themselves, Ike included.

When Roosevelt realized that America would inevitably be sucked into the European mess he and General Geroge C Marshall started cleaning up his general staff by moving them aroud to meet their greatest abilities. General Marshal was the true genious that made everything work. He appointed Eisenhower to his position due to his administrative and personality traits.

@michaeldennis6077

9 ай бұрын

Hell yes. Marshalls the one that said we're not going to sack Patton.

@jtnelson4579

9 ай бұрын

Jill

@billwilson-es5yn

9 ай бұрын

Ike served as MacArthur's staff officer for a good number of years until Doug retired from the Army. Ike said MacArthur liked to surround himself with bootlickers so he would look more competent. Ike went in the different direction and had generals under his command that would argue with him.

@thevillaaston7811

9 ай бұрын

@@billwilson-es5yn 'Ike said MacArthur liked to surround himself with bootlickers so he would look more competent.' Really?.. Where is this on record?

@bac-kb3fj

8 ай бұрын

Ike was a colonial when WWII started. He was jumped over a number of generals who were better qualified for the allied command. But he was a politician and shmoozed Marshal. Eisenhower had never commanded soldiers in the field. He was a desk jockey.

It wasn't just the Americans, it was everyone who had to deal with him personally. The best description I've heard of him came from a British officer. To put it in American terms, if he was on a football team and didn't get to be the quarterback and call the plays, he would mess up on purpose.

@91Redmist

9 ай бұрын

Wow. That's saying a lot.

@aceclash

9 ай бұрын

quite simple. British and French rest on their laurels cause they only needed to occupy weak countries while Germany and Japan developed their armies and navy with intent on attacking other empires. both used world war 1 tactics still against German blitzkrieg.

@thevillaaston7811

9 ай бұрын

@twostep1953 'The best description I've heard of him came from a British officer.' Which officer would that be?..

@thevillaaston7811

9 ай бұрын

@@91Redmist 'Wow. That's saying a lot.' Read this: SIR BRIAN HORROCKS CORPS COMMANDER Sidgwick & Jackson LONDON 1977 Page 216 ‘The more I studied the problem the less it liked it; without going into technical details, we were not properly balanced for this task. Whilst I was thinking it over, the telephone rang and a Staff Officer from the Twenty-first Army Group said that Field Marshall Montgomery was on his way to see me. A few minutes later he entered my caravan and said, ‘Jorrocks, I am not happy about Bremen. ‘Nor am I sir’, I replied. ‘Tell me about it’, he said. So, sitting in my map lorry I described the problem to him and made certain suggestions. He said not a word until I had finished. After a short pause while he considered the problem on the map, he said, ‘We will do A, B, C, and D. ‘These four decisions were vital - and Bremen was finished. I have deliberately mentioned this because it was typical. Montgomery was not my immediate Commander, but he always kept in such close touch with the battle that he knew when and where ‘the shoe pinched’. He then went down to see the Commander on the spot - in this case, me - and listened to what he had to say. He then made up his mind immediately. As he drove away I knew that he had probably already forgotten about Bremen and would already be considering the next problem. That was what made him such a superb battle commander.’

@krashd

9 ай бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 I'd like to know too because that just sounds like utter nonsense, especially considering US generals purposely dragged their feet and failed to prepare for Market Garden up until days before because they were sure Ike would cancel it. That is literally messing up on purpose while also failing to follow orders at the highest chain of command.

Gr8 well researched history as always

Patton chose to forget that it was Monty who advised Ike that Patton should be brought back into the theatre in western France. Patton was cooling his heels in England because of an ill advised speech and berating a shell shocked war veteran. I do believe that Monty had zero tact and couldn’t empathise with his peers or gauge mood. I agree with Beevor that Monty probably had mild autism. When he finally did go too far and was given an ultimatum from Ike, he got his adjutant to write an apologetic climb down letter to which he added his signature. An interesting quote after realising that he was close to being removed he forlornly asked his adjutant, “What am I going to do Bertie?”. These were not the words of an egotist but of a man that struggled with trying deal with others which he was unable to do because of this undiagnosed disorder. All the players in this alliance, Bradley, Patton and Monty were necessary generals but they all had personal failings.

@luckyguy600

22 күн бұрын

Such is war

Now do a special on why Australians and British hated MacArthur in the Pacific

@jyshot

9 ай бұрын

You forgot to add the US Navy to that list

@hurdygurdyman1905

9 ай бұрын

Just about everyone hated MacArthur

@davidfinch7407

9 ай бұрын

Yes indeed, Mac was a bit of an assh*le to his subordinates just like Monty. The difference is the MacArthur was very successful. Monty built his reputation on Alamein after he was able to out-supply Rommel. After the desert, Montgomery's war record was one of hesitation when boldness was called for and boldness when caution might have better served. The failure at the Faiaise Gap had dire consequences as the Germans were able to rebuild their Army in the west during the Autumn of 1944. In contrast, MacArthur had an almost unbroken string of success in the Pacific, yes, he also had overwhelming material superiority, but he also had incredible terrain and logistical challenges.

@libertycowboy2495

9 ай бұрын

Mac was an ego beast...but troops under his command suffered fewest causalities of any allied army in ww2

@CPtheCoug

9 ай бұрын

Isn't it true MacArthur would often talk in the 3rd person IN PRIVATE? Lol

I believe monty might have been an example of someone in the past who had undiagnosed autism based alone on his first attempt to court a woman: "His approach included drawing diagrams in the sand of how he would deploy his tanks and infantry in a future war, a contingency which seemed very remote at that time. She respected his ambition and single-mindedness but declined his proposal of marriage."

@josephkool8411

9 ай бұрын

Now that is funny

@genghisthegreat2034

9 ай бұрын

His mother rejected him, and he never got over it.

@virgilstarkwell8383

9 ай бұрын

I thought the general view now was that he was a closet case.

@MagiconIce

9 ай бұрын

Either an autist or a full-time gamer by todays standard.

@luckyguy600

22 күн бұрын

Smart woman. Saved a life of grief she did.

I read a book on the actions of members of the OSS during the war. One thing that Mounty did that annoyed the Americans was that he would waste time having his portrait painted while on the battle field. This would support what was said of his ego.

@johndawes9337

8 ай бұрын

hahaha i am sure a artist would love mortars going off around him whilst painting a picture..

@bigwoody4704

8 ай бұрын

He was nowhere around hahaha - he was at his caravan with his bunnies,cannaries and puppie dawgs - the bent freak. The have pictures of it

In the war of recognition between the allies in WW2 I would have referred them to the wise words of the Duke of Wellington following Waterloo, when officers were constantly asking for his recognition of their regiments, Gentlemen, he said, there is enough glory for all.

Monty was actually Irish by birth. During WW1 he was shot through the lungs as he lay out in no man’s land, a medic sent to rescue him was shot by a sniper and collapsed on top of Monty. The sniper then used the two men for target practice. Monty was shot twice more. A day of so later he was picked up and taken for medical treatment. However the doctors believing him to be dying refused treatment and sent him for burial. A grave was dug and Monty was laid alongside it, but as the diggers waited for him to stop breathing, he moved his hand and so was sent back to the medics for another look and was saved. I think an experience like that would have affected his personality on going.

@johnburns4017

9 ай бұрын

Monty was actually born in London near the Oval cricket ground.

@thevillaaston7811

9 ай бұрын

@@johnburns4017 You beat me to it.

@davemac1197

9 ай бұрын

The whole of Ireland was British in 1887, even the bit Montgomery wasn't born in. Which reminds me, has Joe Biden told us which part of Ireland he's from at all?

@thevillaaston7811

9 ай бұрын

@@davemac1197 He will when he wakes up.

@TheDesertwalker

8 ай бұрын

.He will beat the Orange Grifter Draft Dodger Bine Spurs Donnie Dump@@thevillaaston7811

Its all because monty was likely autistic and didn't pick up on social cues. He had a very good understanding of the common soldier though. He was ostracised for giving advice on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases in an era where generals were meant to think that their men were not meant to have sexual urges and so should punish them. His forward thought in training made his men able to wether the battle for France relatively well, especially his insistence of night fighting drills that made his divisions able to manoueveoure easier. Ultimately, Monty didn't "fit in" with the officers mess, he didn't drink, he didn't suck up etc. Surely it's testament to his skill that even with all his flaws, he was still seen as vital to fight the war

Eisenhower did not promote Montgomery to the rank of Field Marshall, it was Churchill's "consolation and reward" following Eisenhower's assumption of overall ground commander role. It really was a stupid thing to do.

@johndawes9337

7 ай бұрын

you are very good at chocolate starfish talk

@luckyguy600

22 күн бұрын

Without the code breakers, he just might have screwed up in El Alamein. Hell, the Brits might still be there making sand castles. Monty in the Ukraine. Just think of how that would play out!

Bear in mind the British fought alone until 1942 in Africa, Asia and suffered severe losses because of poor leadership. Monty was a good leader with personal traits. US generals were no worse than Monty. Patton was as arrogant as Monty and much more brutal to his own troops hence his suspension and eventual sacking. Monty made do with limited supplies. Slim was a cut above, but that’s a different story

@everettmadsen4265

4 ай бұрын

False. The Australians (as well as colonial subjects from India and various African nations) fought in North Africa pre-1942 and millions of Chinese had already died fighting the Japanese by 1942. Many Brits are every bit as blindly jingoistic as they accuse Americans of being.

@paulconnolly5320

4 ай бұрын

@@everettmadsen4265 which bit is false? The fought alone or the issue of generalship arrogance? If the former, you are quite right that Britain fought with her empire forces but they were all volunteers, no conscription. Pre 1942 was essentially a European war and not global until Japan attacked Asia outside Manchuria/China

@everettmadsen4265

4 ай бұрын

@@paulconnolly5320 The claim that Britain fought alone in Africa and Asia is categorically false. As I said, many troops from colonial subjects and commonwealth nations were fighting alongside the British, and the Chinese too of course. Ignoring the Chinese fighting Japan since 1937 is simply a Eurocentric viewpoint, however you didn't even just do that, you claimed the British were fighting ALONE in Asia prior to 1942 which is a slap in the face to the Chinese. Also, as far as Asia goes, pre-1942 the British really hadn't done all that much in Asia beyond their colonial troops (including Indians, Australians, and Malayans among others) falling quickly to the advancing Japanese in Malaya and their Hong Kong garrison consisting of British, Canadian, and Indian troops surrendering. Basically the same thing was concurrently happening to the US/Filipino troops in the Philippines. So really the British impact in Asia wasn't all that much more than the Americans pre-1942 contrary to your claim, and of course was not even remotely comparable to the Chinese war effort. If anything, the US oil embargo on Japan was far more impactful than any fighting the British did against the Japanese up to that point.

@paulconnolly5320

4 ай бұрын

@@everettmadsen4265 Britain funded it regardless of where the people came from. That is the only reason to say it stood alone. It bankrupted us as a consequence. US support pre 1942 was conditional on payments being made with gold. The US collected it from the U.K. rather than risk losing it to UBoats in the Atlantic. Lend lease changed that since the gold ran out. As for the Chinese, yes they were fighting the Japanese but that was a specific intra China conflict and did not spread until 1941.

@everettmadsen4265

4 ай бұрын

@@paulconnolly5320 Give me a break. Britain "funded it" with the wealth it plundered from those very colonies. Not to mention Canada and Australia were already independent nations at that point so your statement is inaccurate nevertheless. Even if we grant you the "Britain funded it" argument, you would have to be consistent and apply that logic to the massive amounts of war material the US sent to Britain, USSR, China, etc. before Pearl Harbor. As an American, I certainly do not attribute credit to the US for the British enduring the blitz, the Soviet fight on the eastern front, or China's resistance against Japan just because we sent war materials. You can spin it however you want, the simple fact is that there were massive contributions from 25% of the world's population, only a fraction of which were actually British proper. Britain was anything but alone pre-Pearl Harbor. Also, again to dismiss China's fight against Japan is simply a Eurocentric POV. But you still can't take that stance though since you explicitly claimed that Britain was fighting alone in Asia. Well, the Germans and Italians were not fighting in Asia, so you can only be talking about the Japanese. So how could you dismiss the Chinese fighting and inflicting millions of casualties upon them? This of course also ignores the fact I stated earlier that the British in reality hadn't actually done all that much against Japan up to that point anyways. The most impactful western allied action against Japan prior to Pearl harbor was the US freezing their assets and cutting off oil (and other resource) exports to them in 1941. Losing 80% of its oil supply forced Japan to overextend itself procuring those crucial resources in the East Indies and setting a defensive perimeter in the Pacific islands to protect those supply lines.

Monty oversold his ability during the Sicily and Normandy Invasions, Operation Goodwood and Market Garden. He wanted the glory and promised more than he could accomplish. Big egos are common at that level, but he was seriously self aggrandizing.

@SirJamesSomerville99

9 ай бұрын

He certainly did not oversell his ability during Sicily, or Normandy... What are you on.

@brustar5152

9 ай бұрын

Gee; Monty did no such thing as FACTUAL history clearly shows.

@jbombs7511

9 ай бұрын

@@SirJamesSomerville99yes he did dude got some many people killed in stupid situations

@oldmech619

9 ай бұрын

I say oh boy, we are not ready to fight just yet. We need to get our forces up to standards. That gave the Germans more time to build up a defense.

@SirJamesSomerville99

9 ай бұрын

@@jbombs7511 Ugh, no. The American's did by failing to capture their bridge on time. Typical really. 96% success rate lmap.

Montgomery was abrasive most of the time to everyone around him, and his ego was just as notorious as Patton's was. We are very lucky Eisenhower was excellent at handling both of them.

@johnburns4017

9 ай бұрын

We were unlucky in having Eisenhower in command of ground troops.

In many of the WW2 campaigns that Monty participated in, he was used to getting his way. Monty would often make an end run around Eisenhower and the other Allied generals by going to the politicians and complaining that the other generals were not cooperating. In Eisenhower's case, Monty was rumored to have complained to Churchill, the British Army Chief of Staff, and had pressure put on the US Pentagon and the US President that Eisenhower should see things his way. In most cases, the other Generals were pressured to either keep silent or give Monty what he wanted. So, Monty did his fair share of political manipulation to get what he wanted, everything was always "What's in it for Monty".

@thevillaaston7811

4 ай бұрын

Where is there evidence of this?

@hollowmstr

3 ай бұрын

Arnhem 1944 - the Allies were short on fuel and supplies. Monty still got the go ahead for Operation Market Garden. A lot of pressure was applied to the other Allied Generals to give Monty what he wanted by their respective governments. Ardennes 1944/45 - the USA did the bulk of the fighting in the campaign, Monty tried to claim he was responsible for winning the campaign but couldn’t. He tried to get the UK government to get involved and give him what he wanted “he won the battle”. Monty got away with a half hearted apology to the other Allied generals and leaders. Nothing gets done either out behind the scenes politics.

@thevillaaston7811

3 ай бұрын

@@hollowmstr Not really. Arnhem. MARKET GARDEN was limited undertaking that given the go ahead because it could be undertaken almost entirely from existing 21st army Group and 1st Allied Airborne Army resources. Before ans during MARKET GARDEN, British and US decision makers were attending the OCTAGON conference in Canada. The only known outside involvement in regard to MARKET GARDEN was the government's quite undestandable desire to see V2 rocket attacks on Britain curtailed. On the 9th September 1944, Montgomery had received this message from the VCIGS*, General Nye: 'Two rockets so called V.2 landed in England yesterday. Believed to have been fired from areas near ROTTERDAM and AMSTERDAM. Will you please report most urgently by what approximate date you consider you can rope off the Coastal area contained by ANTWERP-UTRECHT-ROTTERDAM. When this area is in our hands the threat from this weapon will probably have dis-appeared.' *VCIGS = Vice Chief of the Imperial General Staff - to save you looking it up. Ardennes. Montgomery made no claim that he 'was responsible for winning the campaign', although the reality was that among allied leaders, his was the biggest contribution. The transcript of what Montgomery stated at that press conference is on-line. It seems that after his humiliation in the battle, Bradley was looking to take offence, leading him to take at face value a German version of that press conference: This from one of Montgomery’s harshest critics: WITH PREJUDICE The War Memoirs of Marshall of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder G.C.B. CASSELL & COMPANY 1966 P 636- 637 ‘In a press conference given on 7 January, Montgomery described how Eisenhower had placed him in command of the whole northern front. He emphasized that the repulse of the German onslaught had been an Anglo-American effort, but somewhat unfortunately went on to describe the battle as ‘most interesting. I think, possibly, one of the most interesting and tricky battles I have ever handled, with great issues at stake.’ 'Montgomery expressed his admiration for the fighting qualities of the American soldier and how grieved he was to see uncomplimentary articles about Eisenhower in the British Press.' ‘When de Guingand saw the British reporters in Brussels on 9 January, they were able to prove to him that their articles had given a balanced view of the picture, but that their editors had been responsible for the flaming headlines which told the British public that Montgomery had defeated the Germans in the salient. It was also learned that the radio station at Arnhem, then in German hands, had intercepted some of the despatches and had re-written them with an anti-American slant. They had been put out and mistaken for BBC broadcasts.’ And this from a reporter at the press conference: CHESTER WILMOT THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE WM. COLLINS, SONS AND CO LTD. 1954 P683 'My dispatch to the B.B.C. was picked up in Germany, rewritten to give it an anti-American bias and then broadcast by Arnhem Radio, which was then in Goebbels's hands. Monitored at Bradley's H.Q., this broadcast was mistaken for a B.B.C. transmission and it was this twisted text that started the uproar.' What Montgomery wanted was for Bradley to be appointed as allied land forces commander. Perhaps because Eisenhower was making such a mess of trying to run the allied ground campaign alongside his political role as Supreme Commander. Who can say?

He sounds exactly like my dad. I believe he had aspergers.

I’m surprised that you didn’t include the footage of Monty making US soldiers run towards him happily yelling and celebrating him. Afterwards, they realized that they were used and felt humiliated. That has to part of why that hated Monty 😮

@voiceofraisin3778

9 ай бұрын

American forces who served under Montgomery were usually complimentary. Mostly because he might be annoying, hard to work with and had an ego the size of small planet but he made sure the officers under him were competent and the lower ranks were well taken care of. The classic case is the Ardennes when British forces moved in to shore up the collapsing US 1st army one of his first actions was making sure the Us troops received hot food in the front lines rather than the normal US system of making fighting troops rely on ration packs and putting main food service in the rear lines. He paid attention to details.

@bloodybones63

9 ай бұрын

Yeah that hot food scared the shit out of the Germans....@@voiceofraisin3778

@koushinproductions

9 ай бұрын

Got i link to that footage good sir? I'm interested in seeing it, but failed to get a good search result.

@bigwoody4704

9 ай бұрын

At the battle of the Bulge GIs threw Monty in the stockade thinking him and imposter.IKE got a big charge out of it as the arrogant ass was trying to take credit for the Bulge's success.

@JimWallace-dp4ty

9 ай бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 more big Woody rubbish !! how are you so clueless . It was Eisenhower who put him in charge of the north flank of the bulge .

The video title almost implies there were people who didn't hate Montgomery.

@TheIntelReport

9 ай бұрын

Yes it does

@drejade7119

9 ай бұрын

Americans under him seems to not hate him...

@derrickstorm6976

9 ай бұрын

If that's your opinion on starting to watch, maybe you should quit immediately

@nvelsen1975

9 ай бұрын

Look bud, if you graduated from Patton Indoctrination High, there aint much this video can do for you. And yes there's a reason I immediatly poke sarcastic fun at you. That reason being Montgomery was "Egomaniac BUT highly competent" while the idiots who collided with his ego, mostly Patton were badly incompetent, shouldn't have been promoted past 1st LT and whose war contribution was negative.

@JimmySailor

9 ай бұрын

Did any of his Peers, other Generals of the same rank, that worked with him like him?

Interestingly, the movie Patton shows Bradley as a modest, non publicity seeking general. Clearly not the case.

@luckyguy600

22 күн бұрын

Didnt know the man. been to his grave though in Arlington Va. Give me Grant Lee or Longstreet anytime. Now they fought!

It's amazing how egotistic Patton was. Peed off because HE DIDN'T GET LUNCH -- but he did get a lousy cheap lighter. Seems Monty cared more about the welfare of his men than GP.

@jthunders

4 ай бұрын

Monty version of events. He had plenty of detractors also inside the British military

@marley7868

4 ай бұрын

getting someone a bad gift and forgoing usual officer protocall (lunch or the like) is typically called an insult if it was a sorry could we just get into the planning and no gift patton likley wouldn't have taken the insult

Only for Montgomery we wouldn't have Spike's great memoir, 'Monty: His Part in My Victory'.

In Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" Montgomery is discussed as an interesting border case -- a commander who displayed many of the features that led to failure in many others, but who was intelligent and self aware enough to recognise those problems in himself and to _deliberately_ work to overcome them -- his whole "friend of the common soldier" schtick was planned -- he knew he was by nature aloof and introverted, so he worked on being the "soldier's soldier" as a way overcoming what he saw in a weakness. Sometimes he succeed in overcoming his nature and had tremendous success, sometimes he failed and looked like a total prat.

@davemac1197

9 ай бұрын

Interesting insight. Thanks for posting.

@aleccrombie7923

9 ай бұрын

At least he didn't rough up a shell shocked soldier!!!!!

@tonyrains217

8 ай бұрын

He just caused the deaths of thousands in Operation Market Garden.

@ggoddkkiller1342

8 ай бұрын

You don't risk your life on front lines to just push a narrative about yourself...

@garythomas3219

8 ай бұрын

Where did Montgomery fail ?

Great video. I was wondering why, in other videos comments sections, people sometimes loathe Monty. The last part was a bit rushed; Monty had still a big Rhine crossing, with an airdrop bigger than Market Garden, before he was sidelined; Varsity.

@johndawes9337

7 ай бұрын

side-lined? as for MG not his::Ike demanded it Brereton and Williams planned it Gavin messed it up

@bigwoody4704

7 ай бұрын

Get your head wound looked at. Then go visit Monty's statue in Arnhem - oh that's right there isn't one

@johndawes9337

7 ай бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 lilwoody Whittaker..of course there is no statue of the ETOs best general at Arnhem he had nothing to do with it but there is a wonderful bridge named after a brilliant British officer..now get your tongue back on them windows they wont lick themselves will they Boy.

@bigwoody4704

7 ай бұрын

You would like him he looked like a weasel and behaved like one also Now move along funny boy Here's your hero - taken from the Guardian book review THE FULL MONTY *Prof Hamilton, who was befriended by the field marshal at age 11 and knew him well for the last 20 years of his life, has no doubt of the nature of Monty's feelings. "These were quasi love affairs. He became really passionately involved with these young men - and then, more and more, boys, who he would call 'my sons'. They were nothing of the kind, of course, but in his own personality he would frame them in this way. "I myself have more than 100 very loving letters from him.* My relationship with him wasn't sexual, in the sense that it wasn't acted upon, but I had been through enough years at British boarding schools to know what kind of enormous affection and feeling he had for me. *"And I wasn't alone, this was a consistent pattern in Monty's life." One boy was Lucien Treub, Montgomery's "little Swiss friend", who met him at 12, and told Hamilton how the general would bathe him personally and rub him down so he would not catch cold* "I've interviewed him several times and he was quite clear he didn't feel there was any molesting going on, but it's a tricky area," Prof Hamilton said. Second world war hero had platonic love for soldiers and boys, claims friend and biographer .The Full Monty, by his official biographer, Nigel Hamilton, claims that Montgomery felt passionately about fellow soldiers and boys, some not yet in their teens. So decreed Field Marshal Montgomery as he urged the House of Lords not to legalise gay sex and warned that the 1967 homosexuality bill would be a "charter for buggery". More than 30 years on, the gay age of consent has been equalised to 16, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military - and Britain's most famous wartime general has been outed as a repressed homosexual who had "quasi love affairs" with boys and men, according to a new book.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

7 ай бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 People like to throw mud. Especially after the passing of someone held in respect. There are cases where suspicion is deserved, or even cases where evidence emerges too late (such as the entertainer Jimmy Saville who hinted at his double life in a television interview before he died and got away with it). But such guilt is quite rare. Accusations are cheap and some fire them off on the principle they might be right one day. Or perhaps they just like muddying a reputation because earning one is beyond them. Monty was quite opposed to homosexuality ... which would suggest he didn’t have those tastes himself you would think.

Monty was an excellet comander if . . . if the enemy did what was written in the plan.

@11nytram11

5 ай бұрын

Montgomery denied himself the credit for his flexibility as a commander because he always insisted everything went according to plan when it clearly didn't, and where battles deviated from his pre-battle plan this became something to criticise him for.

@bigwoody4704

5 ай бұрын

LMAO,the Germans didn't want to defeat him figuring the Winston would appoint a real Field Marshall

When I was 11 in 1947 Monty visited Carlisle and I got close enough to his jeep, after a struggle, to shake his hand. There were huge crowds and he was definitely a hero then.

@Robert-eg2oy

9 ай бұрын

He did not want to take command in Africa and have to go up against Rommel until he was told that the German code had been broken and that he would know Rommels orders before Rommel himself knew his orders, thereby making Monty out to be a hero, it wasn’t until operation “ Market Garden “ turned out to be a disaster that the true Monty was exposed as an incompetent leader, that Eisenhower had to relieve him of his command.

@Emil.Fontanot

9 ай бұрын

That's very interesting and fascinating. You have lived quite the long life.

@ThePierre58

8 ай бұрын

My Uncle was in the desert, circa 1943 when the General was touring the front line. Les, said it was like meeting an icon, yet Monty, who had served in the trenches, in the Great War, was buoyant. " a ball of energy" was my uncle's comment.

@catherinelw9365

8 ай бұрын

Let me guess. And your father shook hands with Lawrence of Arabia. 😂

@ericlarson6390

8 ай бұрын

Montgomery WAS an icon; he was the hero the British people needed at the time.

I've always wondered at the general animosity held against Montgomery. I had assumed it was because Monty was too cautious and slow to respond. This video fleshed out my limited, popularized view of Monty. I'm much gratified for the new understanding. Thanks for this.

@TheIntelReport

9 ай бұрын

Cheers

@mastafull

9 ай бұрын

As an American, I was well aware of Patton's ego. They made an entire motion picture out of it, after all. But I never realized Monty was just as bad in his own way.

@adrianstent7009

9 ай бұрын

Monty was cautious commander, remember he saw bloody action and was seriously injured in the First World War,Eisenhower didn’t see any action in the First World War,think Monty would of been miffed by that.

@donorbane

9 ай бұрын

He was a crap general, made crap plans he couldn't back up, used outdated attack models and got in Patton's way.

@TheIntelReport

9 ай бұрын

@@donorbane source: a film

Monty suffered from 'Little Man Syndrome'. He was a self important, arrogant, argumentative, would brook no one disagreeing with him and petty... and only an average commander... good at divisional level, not so good at the combined army level... Also, his treatment of his children was awful.

@bransonwalter5588

4 ай бұрын

Completely agree. He also wanted the perfect amount of resources. The problem with that? War is never perfect and resources are NEVER enough.

Its easy to pick fault with Monty; he did however win battles, was loved by his men and driven to not accept failure. Cometh the hour cometh the man.

@brentinnes5151

3 ай бұрын

He only won in Africa because Rommel had all his logistics cut off and Monty just stockpiled so much ordnance he could not lose....his hubris also got Red Devils decimated at Arnhem...he wasnt that good

@zen4men

3 ай бұрын

@@brentinnes5151 Monty did NOT command the airborne drop. Had there been ONE drop on Arnhem, not TWO, the force holding the bridge would have been stronger. / The gains of Market Garden werre huge. / The US Army in the Bulge got caught with it's trousers down. The US Army was humiliated by it's own lack of military preparation, and American generals were "super touchy" as a result. The Broad Front Strategy had overstretched the front, leaving Germany free to find a weak spot guarded by second rate soldiers, who, although in a defender's paradise, had failed to prepare proper defences. / No wonder they were sore - the casualties were huge. And the US Army in the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest decimated it's own forces for a pretty limited return. / Montgomery was loved by his men, because he really cared deeply for their lives, having experienced the whole of WW1 himself, and having a grave dug for him in 1914, and no-one though he would survive his wound. /

@brentinnes5151

3 ай бұрын

my point was Market Garden was 100% his plan...Americans very skeptical but went ahead because of Monty's hubris...it was a massacre@@zen4men

@zen4men

3 ай бұрын

​@@brentinnes5151 The original concept, yes. Once Airborne in England took control. Monty had no input. Due the the USAAF DC3 pilots unwillingness to fly at night, it was not possible to carry out 2 drops on Day One at Arnhem. Holding the drop zone overnight fatally weakened the move towards the bridge. / Having highly experienced German generals presently locally, complete with headquarters set up, was just more bad luck. / Did Market Garden advance the allies towards victory? The answer has to be Yes. / And the assault river crossing at Nimegen by US 3/504th must rank in the top ten assaults in recent history - amazing. / Did the Battle of the Bulge advance the allies towards victory? The answer has to be more No than Yes. While it further weakened Germany, it also burnt through allied resources, leaving the allies off-balance, including in the high command. /

@brentinnes5151

3 ай бұрын

your argument is nonsensical and aligned with Monty himself saying Market Garden was mostly a success, but not to the 10,000 casualties, what else is he going to say..the Americans wanted to broaden the front just push the Germans back..Monty wanted glory....I suppose you think Dieppe was a success and the Somme from July 1 was a success, because it weakened German resources..every battle in history to you must be a success...you believe Monty was a great general, I think the opposite@@zen4men

My Grandad was Montgomery's chauffer in North Africa. He always told me how polite and generous he was.

@fnkwhite6382

8 ай бұрын

Your grandad was jack job

@Hibernicus1968

8 ай бұрын

From everything I've read, enlisted men and junior officers who served _under_ Montgomery liked him quite well, because he was a very capable commander who would win battles, and whom they knew would not needlessly spend their lives. It was another story, however, for officers of equal or greater rank, who had to serve alongside or over Monty -- they found his monumental ego, tendency toward self-promotion, and utter lack of anything remotely resembling tact extremely hard to take. This included British senior officers as well as American. Eisenhower's second as supreme Allied commander for the ETO, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder developed a strong dislike for Montgomery. Winston Churchill summed Monty up as "in defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable."

@madgavin7568

7 ай бұрын

@@Hibernicus1968 Monty's superior Alan Brooke acknowledged than he 'once again I had to haul him (Monty) over the coals for his usual lack of tact'.

@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg

6 ай бұрын

There's an old belief that I believe is most likely true that Monty demanded that ALL driver's, tank, armoured vehicles and trucks be former bus, taxi, etc professional drivers in civilian life because he believed that they would have better navigation skills...... very important in an endless desert

@gust0o

5 ай бұрын

Haha, either had a few drivers or I've just discovered a new relative!

It wasn't just the Americans. I was an Army Cadet in the same regiment my uncle served in during WW2. On "Association" nights when the old veterans would get together, I would always pop up to their meeting room after my duties to say hello to my uncle and talk to all the vets. I never heard one of them say a kind word about Monty.

@GSteel-rh9iu

9 ай бұрын

One Pacific Theater USAAF veteran said the only decent Brit officer as far as he could tell was Mountbatten. I don't know why he said that though.

@ejt3708

9 ай бұрын

@@GSteel-rh9iuMountbatten tried to throw a coup.

@ernesttravers829

9 ай бұрын

Mountbatten was a devious puff Remember that arse rules the Navy

@ernesttravers829

9 ай бұрын

Was that a guards regiment. They criticize everyone

@lyndoncmp5751

9 ай бұрын

Regiment name please. Your post is way too vague.

Wonderful video. What it comes down to isn't who was the best general as all three had excellent skills in their own right. The problem was that all three had too much ego and a real inability to keep their mouths shut when diplomacy and co-operation suggested that would be the better option.

I understand why Roosevelt snd Churchill gave Ike the role of Supreme Allied Commander. Ike was skilled at managing the massive egos like Patton, Montgomery and DeGualle. Talk about a Peacock ranch.

@marley7868

4 ай бұрын

yeah he was the organizer and sane man pattons too aggressive degaulle only cared about france and monty has a tallent for saying really stupid sh-t though to his credit he only said it in strategy once (market garden was is and will always be a terrible idea)

To be fair, I think Monty had plenty of staffers of all British service stripes who disliked Monty intensely. It wasn't personal, the man was a unique taste, and probably as this piece says, on the spectrum.

@dylandarnell3657

9 ай бұрын

I read the excerpt at 4:15 and immediately thought, "Oh, he's autistic."

@skathwoelya2935

8 ай бұрын

@@dylandarnell3657 "...has autism" sounds better. People are more than just a disability. We would probably call it Asperger's syndrome these days.

@dylandarnell3657

8 ай бұрын

@@skathwoelya2935 I'm autistic. I use whichever formulation is more convenient in a given sentence, because - as a matter of self-care - I can't be arsed to coddle the delicate sensibilities of neurotypical activists who want to milk my illness for clout. (And if I _could_ - if I woke up tomorrow as someone who _did_ reliably have that level of executive function - I still wouldn't do it, because [a] I would have better things to focus that energy on and [b] I don't like them.) Also, last I checked in with the clout-farm side of mental illness activism, "Asperger's syndrome" had fallen off the euphemism treadmill - the internet had held one of its Ex Post Facto Nuremberg Re-Enactments (you know, as it does) and convicted Hans Asperger on charges of Being A Nazi. Did that get overturned, or did they just memory-hole it?

@skathwoelya2935

8 ай бұрын

@@dylandarnell3657 It's interesting how people on the spectrum tend to assume that other people commenting on YT aren't on the spectrum. I sometimes fall into that trap myself. I don't like the neurotypical activists either as they have an annoying habit of calling people like me "autistic" which I strongly object to - I still have all my other characteristics that make me a fully rounded human being. The current edition of the DSM-5 absorbed "Asperger's syndrome" into "Autism Spectrum Disorders" in 2013 to simplify things. I would prefer "Autism Spectrum Conditions" as "Disorder" suggests something that needs to be cured and AS/autism doesn't need to be. It definitely isn't an "illness" as you claim for yourself. It's a developmental condition. Hans Asperger fell out of favour about five years ago - although if we cancelled all the historic scientists who made advancements by unethical means, or who had bad politics, there probably wouldn't be any left. I'm sticking with "having Asperger's syndrome" as it is less likely to be used as a term of abuse than the word "autistic" is. Also, it's more specific to more able Aspies and was still being used by clinical psychologists in the UK years after the (American) DSM-5 discontinued it. They still might be for all I know. I enjoy your prose style, by the way.

My Uncle who was with the 1st US Army stated we did not hate Monty, we just thought he was an arrogant self-centered person. But then again these same troops thought the same on a George S. Patton and a glory-hound to boot. My Uncle served from North Africa to Germany 1942 to 1945.

@tonyrains217

8 ай бұрын

Monty was lucky in N. Africa. He was a genuine failure as a commander. Patton did nearly everything right except slap a soldier.

@RobertJones-co5jb

8 ай бұрын

@@tonyrains217 Well, that's one opinion, but I think that George S Patton wasted way to many of his own men to achieve his own ego. Hence the nickname 'Old Blood N Guts'

@johnypitman2368

8 ай бұрын

god bless the young men who saved the world, now there is great reason to believe the USA is doomed if the same is needed from our youngsters today

@user-vl2zh2ud7h

8 ай бұрын

Most of troops under British control not British they from its colonial

@thevillaaston7811

8 ай бұрын

@@user-vl2zh2ud7h When did that happen?

Short answer is: Because he was a massive prima donna and gloryhound (something which Patton was too to a lesser extent (specifically the prima donna part, he had arguably a bigger ego but definitely was also a gloryhound), except Patton didn't have the disaster of Operation Market Garden to embarrass him).

@johndawes9337

8 ай бұрын

oh dear another hollywood historian..MG was not Monty, Ike demanded it Brereton and Williams planned it and Gavin of the 82nd messed it up...Patton had Metz and task force Baum that embarrassed him big time..pays to do a lil research if you do not want to make yourself look stupid

@11nytram11

8 ай бұрын

Patton did have the poorly conducted Lorraine campaign to embarrass him - a frontal piecemeal assault with no real plan across a river against an entrenched enemy in a fortified location defended by German reserve troops who were, in some cases, cooks and invalids, in an attempt to capture Metz, which he only took once the Germans withdrew to support the Ardennes Offensive. And, of course, he also had Task Force Baum - a sacrificial and suidical raid behind enemy lines designed mainly to rescue Patton's captured son-in-lawm which resulted in complete failure with only 35 out of 300 men returning to Allied lines, and of which was proven a pointless waste of men and resources because the Allies would liberate that POW camp only 9 days after the raid failed.

@dovetonsturdee7033

8 ай бұрын

No. Patton had a greater disaster in Lorraine. Why not look up the American casualties there for yourself?

@bigwoody4704

8 ай бұрын

Go screw yourselves you Britsh couldn't cross a crummy little channel in 4 Yrs - FOUR FULL YEARS. who do you think your bullshyting? The Euros watched you skedaddle while the Poles/French/Dutch took bullets as monty took to the boats There was simply no bypassing of Lorraine. It had to be conquered, cleared, and the German divisions defeated or pushed back. Metz was considered one of the most formidable citadels in the world with it's 43 reinforced concrete artillery equipped bunkers that were mined in the front by Gen Herman Balck. The Germans had flooded the Moselle and the Seille rivers and they still took it unlike the British in 1815. The Lorraine campaign lasted from 1 Sep to Dec,not just 9 days in the Netherlands, 6,657 were killed over 3 months and they took 75,000 German PoWs, compared with 17,000 casualties at Market Garden in just 9 days (which was more than the invasion of Normandy) including nearly 2,000 Brits and Poles killed before taking the American killed into account. Market Garden had nearly 3 times the casualties per day. Op Queen and the Hurtgen Forest battles (of which Queen was part) were costly failures, also, but the same argument applies - the period was far longer and the average losses less together with much higher Axis casualties and PoWs and they do not turn Market Garden into a success. Market Garden was a failure. Look at a map - where the hell do think they were going to punch thru?THEY HAD TO FIGHT THRU - that is why it's called a war.Stalin himself pointed this out to Churchill at Tehran and accused the British of stalling - look that up Patton wasn't going to leave 25,000 Heer soldiers behind him at Metz that fell to 3rd Army. You are simply a fanboy continually ignoring military logic. Unlike Monty in the Netherlands who took 6 more months to cross the Rhine. Where he had to go back and open up the port of Antwerp on November 28th The Russians on the east were fighting the same vicious battles also cupcake.That's why it's called a war. The British weren't there like we were for AUSTRALIA,but the GIs kept grinding. When the smoke cleared there were two world powers left standing and neither you or monty belonged with them you're welcome you cheeky chodes.

@bushyfromoz8834

4 ай бұрын

The whole analogy of a Montgomery Martini doesn't work when you consider Montgomery was famously a teetotaller.

Americans didn't fully experience the calamity of WW1 and the horrible causalities there. The British senior officer corps distilled the lessons from it and were determined to not waste troops needlessly. Montgomery epitomized that. He was a brilliant general obviously. RIP

@emerkamp1

3 ай бұрын

I think anyone can see how dumb that was and is the main reason for the US not wanting to get involved early on in either war, but always seem to get yelled at for doing so. Being overly cautious (Traumatized from the past) during wartime isn't seen as a positive in the military. It's a fine line many generals get called back for.

@okwrecked4477

19 күн бұрын

We didn’t experience walking into no man’s land and getting cut down with machine guns you’re right. Actually in world war 1 when America arrived in France there was a French division retreating from the Germans. The French general scribbled the word retreat on a note and handed it to the American general. To which the American general replied “Retreat? Hell, we just got here!” Don’t blame America for not getting involved right away, had America not been involved in WW2 the Brit’s would be speaking German right now

" I still hate that man" ~ Dead Patton

Enough credit is not given to Ike, imagine having to play nurse made with dozens of premadonna generals and personalities and still try to win a war.

@madgavin7568

9 ай бұрын

Ike really was the right man at the right time. I don't think anyone else could have done the job he did.

@user-gl5dq2dg1j

9 ай бұрын

@@madgavin7568 His boss, Marshall could have. But Roosevelt needed him to keep Hap Arnold, and MacArthur in check. He also was needed to have Ike's back in Washington. Marshall also came to a peace agreement with the notoriously prickly admiral King.

@madgavin7568

9 ай бұрын

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j Marshall is arguably the greatest General to have never commanded troops during wartime. You need Generals like him, as well as Ike.

@virgilstarkwell8383

9 ай бұрын

But it was great training for POTUS!

@11nytram11

9 ай бұрын

Quite honestly, the only credit Eisenhower ever really gets as a general was his ability to effectively manage a multi-national coalition with strong willed generals and keep it from falling apart through infighting. He has absolutely no record from which to judge his tactical abilities because he never even personally saw action let alone commanded a battle, he has mixed reviews on a strategic and logistical level, but majority opinion holds that he was the best choice to be Supreme Commander because of his man-management skills.

First of all, in defence of General Montgomery, who was also a veteran of WWI (a war in which the U.S. participated for 1 year, as opposed to the U.K. who fought in that war for 4 long years). General Montgomery was in WWII from the time that the U.K. declared war with Germany in 1937! The U.S. didn't get involved until 1941, which is another 4 year gap! Montgomery had very little patience with the U.S. troops and their arrogance. The U.S. wasn't getting bombed every single night from air raids from the Nazi's, so General Montgomery probably had a bit of an attitude about the latecomers again, especially when Patton showed up and took credit for everything the Allies did as a group force.

@nowakonstruktywnakrytyka7938

14 күн бұрын

1937?