Rommel vs Montgomery

For years I watched people repeat the claim Montgomery gave a press interview during the Bulge where he insulted American Generals and claimed the credit for winning the battle. You will find this 'fact' referenced in scores of books and I saw no attempt to source the original and see if it was as bad as that.
I did something that no one else seems to have thought to do. I looked in the archive of the New York Times to find the original press reports. To say I was surprised by what I saw was an understatement.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1628408#p1628408


The comments were very positive and Montgomery made no credit grab or bad mouthed anyone. What happened was he confirmed a fact that had been 'hidden' from public view-that an American Army had been transferred to his command. That was something Bradley took great offence at and the next day Bradley gave a press conference which was the start of the distortion of history. It did not help that the German were putting out fake reports where Montgomery's words were changed to give him all the credit.
The whole thing is nothing more than Generals trying to manage their image and for some reason this has been seen as Montgomery alone doing it rather than Bradley being involved.

So that is my reason for caution. I have heard lots of claims but have never seen them backed up with reliable data

 

And I am deeply troubled that the remark I made earlier:

No doubt I will be said to be claiming Monty was god's representative on earth but all I say is he was no better and no worse than any other Allied General.

has been completely ignored in order to keep ploughing the same furrow.

It is tiresome when an attempt to correct the myth is turned into a charge of censorship.
If you have a problem with a specific point I bring up then dispute it.

 

The mistake in that line of thought is the core of the confusion.
Montgomery had a developed a style of warfare that made sure he had a very good chance to win every battle he fought.
He developed this style because he worked out the Germans were good at some things and bad at others.
He decided to play to his strengths and the German weakness.
A belief has grown up that the German way was the only way to win a 'fair fight' and everyone who wins a battle against them without fighting to those strengths is less skilled/not as clever/ too cautious etc.
I say framing a question were the only solution is the German way is rigging the vote.

It appears that you think Montgomery should have took more risks and won 'more fairly' but I counter that with Montgomery always made sure he was going to win. He put measures in place before a shot had been fired that ensured his ultimate success. He clearly was far superior in that department than any German General. Why should he expose himself to possible defeat just so he could parade through Berlin/Tunis a couple of weeks earlier?

Rigging the question to ensure Monty would win the vote would look like this:

'Could Rommel have taken Egypt if he had sat on his arse for 3 months and built up his bases and supplies rather than making futile frontal attacks Montgomery?'

 

The assumption bring made is the way it played out was the only way it could have gone. Not so. I do not say Montgomery was right but an argument can be made that he was right and it would be impossible for you to say that it would never have delivered success. There are many ways to skin a cat and it is simplistic to claim otherwise.
Again I ask why, when several Allied Generals were fighting for the 'honour' of being the main thrust into Germany, do you single but one out for criticism?

 

That speaks bad for his personality problem and points out ego. Especially during the Battle of Generals Memoirs after the war. But Field Marshall's personality can and should be seperated his contributions to victory as a whole and his eventual value to Allied command should evelauated as a whole. His decisions were mostly correct though he was by no means a "genius" for war. Fast manuever warfare was not his thing. He was cautious when he should have been quick. At the other hand his record in breaking out enhanced enemy defense lines , defensive war was the best of any Allied commander. Yes he was definetely not the man to be a Supreme Land Commander due to personality issues ( even he did admit tht he did not realize the grudge certain American commanders had against him ) and his "one single thrust to Berlin" concept was wrong. Allies had to be very very lucky if they had a single intact bridgehead on Rhine after September 1944. The war was bound to extend 1945 because Allies simply did not make any long term plans for a sudden collapse of Wehrmacht in France in1944 summer. Nor did they any preperation to exploit it. German army in every level were major exploiters and improvisers. Allied armies (except maybe Patton ) were not. By their nature and past experiences and how they won their victories it is normal they were slow , methodical and cautious. Allied victories were usually product of long and meticulous planning and preperation. Hence Market-Garden failure. And overlooking Scheldt - Walcharen istmus in September 1944 is almost unforgivable.

At the other hand especially American commanders or moreover their reviewers and suporters tend to dismiss other Monty's contributions to Allied victory too easily. Montgomery realised training , doctrine and morale problems of entire 8th Army and fixed them mostly. He might have took over a good defensive terrain and plan for Alam el Halfa success. But still he executed it and made the plan work. His victory over Rommel in Alamein can be reviewed as unimaginative , unfair (as if this was a card game and he was holding all aces. Rommel or Ritchie did not have their own aces ? ) and slow. But at the end with these methods he won , got 59.000 men and 430 tanks of German-Italian Panzer Armee , drove enemy out of Egypt into east , broke Rommel invicibilty myth. If Rommel retreated with all these forces intact into Tunisia Kasserine Pass defeat might well have been "Kasserine Disaster" for 2nd US Corps. 8th Army under his command broke through both Mareth Line and Wadi Akarit in March 1943 again fighting against majority of Giovanni Messe's German-Italian Panzer Armee and reached Central Tunisia while Patton's 2nd US Corps were struggling to pass over resistance of one Axis battlegroup in El Guettar. Bedell Smith said about Montgomery and Normandy "Whatever you might think about Monty he got us over there !" Montgomery revised Overlord in January 1944 (enlarged initial landing front and number of divisions ) and led Battle of Normandy better or worse until August 1944. His initial prediction about how battle would evolve (told to all SHAEF staff , Churchill and King George in 15th May briefing) proved to be correct holding Caen area - not the city - as pivot to pull German panzer reserves to one flank so other flank would became defenseless. It is just his and SHAEF premature victory claims and his willingness to improvise (not his or Allies strongest trademark ) in case there is a breakthrough in east flank created confusion. When that not happened he could always say and claim his Master Plan in Normandy worked. He was unwilling to admit he could improvise , that does not make him a bad general.

More over Ike's decision to appoint him as commander of Northern shoulder during Battle of Bulge proved correct also. He tidied up front. Retreated when necessary. Kept up a reserve for any evantual enemy breakthrough or eventul counter attack and stopped 5th Panzer Army eventually. Operation Veritable - Granede in February March 1945 were best examples of successful classic set-piece battles on a very unfavorable terrain. All of these indicate his victories though unimaginative and lacked flair were much more numereous and critical than his failures. It is just his failures and defeats seem much more striking considering numerical superiority and advantages Allies had or compared fast moving overflanking cavalry generals like Rommel or Patton. While Montgomery had to attack where enemy was strongest and had to preserve manpower Patton when usually stuck in front of a well enhanced and prepared defensive line and wasted men to achieve breakthrough (El Guettar and Metz ) without any strategic benefit to Allies. Though Patton was best exploiter of any gap in enemy defense and fast maneuvering behind enemy lines. Monty was not. Their strengths were different that does not diminish their contributions.

We can always seperate man and his personality from his achivements. Too bad so many in SHAEF couldn't (though Monty's arrogance did not make this any easier during and after the war )

 

First some dissenting and of-topic replies :

The single thrust to Berlin concept was not wrong.

The "unforgivable" statement about Walcheren is very questionable .



Than,about the usual Montgomery Corrall Figthing : it is much more than Montgomery : A few points (I am in a hurry):Montgomery is for a lot of people the symbol of an arrogant Europe,living in the past,and refusing to accept inconditionally the benefits of americanization .

After WWI,there was a conviction in the US that at Versailles an unscrupulous Lloyd George succeeded to make a stooge of the naive Wilson,and that Haig and Foch tried to use American soldiers as cannon fodder,but this was prevented by Pershing .

In WWII,the conviction was that Winston would repeat the cunning actions of LG and that the British would want to command US soldiers (=using them as cannon fodder),thus,the big indignation when Montgomery was given authority on US soldiers .

If there was no Montgomery,there still would be a Corrall Fighting.

 

Coming to this late, as I've been the 2nd Timms to visit Egypt (the 1st being my Grand Father 70 yrs ago serving as a Guardsman under Monty). My Gramp thought Monty a great commander because he and his mates were fed up of being killed and losing all the time. Under Monty they had a commander who gave them a chance of winning and that's what the 8th Army wanted. It might not have been dazzling blitzkreig deep raids in the enemy rear with tanks but hey we're Brits slow and steady, no showing off, do the job and go home. Monty was a man, with all the faults that come with being human but he was the man we needed to do the job and we can turn a massive defeat into victory (Dunkirk etc) so give us a winner and he is a hero.

 

IMHO,it all started with Montgomery's memoirs(1958),in which ,it has been claimed,he was critical about Ike .As usual,no one had read the memoirs,but,they all were willing to believe the newspaper stories that Montgomery was bashing Ike:a Limey attacking Ike : how dared they : "we" saved their asses; typical European ingratitude ,and such things .

 

I've seen lots of comments about different commanders, excellent men in their own time and own field, with capabilities far and above what most of us armchair admirals possess. These Generals and Field Marshals operated under difficult constraints of Political issues, time limits, supply limits, and human frailities in difficult conditions, under the widest conflict in human history, with weapon systems that didn't exist 15 years earlier. They exploited their own abilities and capabilities to the best of their ability, and made good use of their opponents' weaknesses.

The British were exceedingly cautious about wasting men's lives. The potential gain had to be clearly seen to be worth the risk. With regards to Operation Market Garden, the belief was the German Army was now beaten. The potential gain was a quicker end to the war, which was now firmly in sight.

Politically, at home and abroad across the Commonwealth, there was a clear understanding that the losses of WWI would not be tolerated; there could no longer be futile costly attacks that led hundreds of thousands of young men to die for a few meters of mud. That was the lasting lesson for the entire Commonwealth, and France.

Americans still believed the British were trying to Empire-build, when in reality it was going bankrupt, nor was it so morally corrupt that it would willingly waste American lives.

 

The problem seems to be you see insult where it was not apparent and not intended.
I find the alternataive that you see anything less than a complement as an insult more likely. I've watched some of these debates over Montgomery and have developed more of an appreciation for him as a commander than I had before I frequented these boards. I think I can see both sides of this and to me it's you that has the blinders on.

You may feel the original comment was neither 'insulting or derogatory' but I say that the years of exposure to this way of thinking has induced a prejudice that you are simply not able to see.

I missed it but you will find similar diatribes about Mac. Do either one deserve it? That's an open question IMO.

??? I find it very troubleing that you would post this. It implies that you have not read the responses of others (I did specifically address this line) and furthermore we should give weight to a straw man of a straw man. What kind of response did you expect to such a statement?

And it is tiresome seeing people respond with emotion rather than thinking about what was posted and responding with fact and logic.

 

That's hardly the whole story though is it? In part he developed that "style" because he could. He also seemed to be more risk averse than the Germans but then as I've stated before he could aford to be. All he had to do to win was to avoid looseing. A more deciseive victory by a more agressive persuite would have helped some but it wouldn't have changed the outcome. A reversal due to said persuit being over agressive and cut off might also not have changed the out come but it would have been much worse for Britain, British soldiers, and ultimately Monty. I think Monty made the wisest decision in this case. Rommel would likely have gone the other way but I don't find that necessarily a point in his favor (although he was in the opposite position, he needed a big win or more likely wins to have any hope at all of ultimate victory so maybe his greater risk takeing was justified).

I simply don't see the debate being framed that way. The Germans like any other professional military weren't in to "fair fights". They were at a material and manpower dissadvantage and sought ways to win in spite of that. It worked well for the first year or two then less as their advasaries figured out how to respond to it.

I would argue that he didn't always insure success before he engaged in battle, Normandy has a number of counter points to that. On the other hand it was a luxury that he had and the Germans didn't have. In the case of the persuit of Rommel I tend to agree with you although a more aggressive persuit might have prevented Kasserine Pass. Not sure that would have been all that good of thing either. Fremdall might have stayed in command until he could have messed up something really important.

 

The problem seems to be you see insult where it was not apparent and not intended.
I find the alternataive that you see anything less than a complement as an insult more likely. I've watched some of these debates over Montgomery and have developed more of an appreciation for him as a commander than I had before I frequented these boards. I think I can see both sides of this and to me it's you that has the blinders on.

You may feel the original comment was neither 'insulting or derogatory' but I say that the years of exposure to this way of thinking has induced a prejudice that you are simply not able to see.

I missed it but you will find similar diatribes about Mac. Do either one deserve it? That's an open question IMO.

 

Well not all american generals thought Monty was dead loss -m here a piece I found:

Fulsome praise from Major General Matt Ridgway (American of course and one of the best generals ever).

He was the commander of the US XVIII Airborne Corps at the Battle of the Bulge.

He wrote to Montgomery and his letter read,

‘It has been an honoured privilege and a very great personal pleasure to have served, even so briefly, under your distinguished leadership.

To the gifted professional guidance you at once gave me, was added your own consummate courtesy and consideration. I am deeply grateful for both.

My warm and sincere good wishes will follow you and with them the hope of again serving you in pursuit of a common goal.’

Ridgway never seemed the sort of guy to waste praise on an incompetent.

Simply fact is that all commanders have some area that they don't excel in: Hannibal was useless at sieges (as my Avatar can confirm)

No-one came close to Monty at Logistics and he was exceptional in a Defensive and a set -piece Battle - excellent trainer and motivator. The pursuit was not his forte and its in the character of the man - he simply could not let go of the reins in a messy chase. But he would have made a better fist of taking Metz than Patton IMO. Horses for courses!

 

I suspect a lot of the animosity vs Monty in the US is a result of his post war attacks on Ike. The latter was very well thought of here as his election as president demonstrates.

 

The fact that the Montgomery memoirs were published a short time after the Suez crisis(which resulted almost in the rupture of the British/American relations) was not without influencing the content of the memoirs :there was a lot of animosity against the US in the British establishment.

 

The differences in style between Monty and Patton can explained by the fact that Monty came from an infantry regiment, and Patton from a cavalry regiment.

 

I think the brits folded their cavalry into their infantry regiments, or made their cavalry regiments into infantry, whereas the US folded their cavalry into mechanized infantry/ armor regiments