[Note: This is Part 1 of a scheduled three-part analysis of Montgomery's leadership and battlefield performance in World War II. Part 2 can be found here. Part 3 can be found here.]
Love him or detest him, there has rarely been a middle-ground when it comes to opinions about one of World War II’s most controversial and misunderstood generals: Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery. He has been the subject of gossip, endless articles and a number of biographies, as well as portraits and assessments in books about the battles, campaigns and theaters of war in which he served. Overall, historians have been unkind to Montgomery. In this article I intend to make the case that these judgments are mostly superficial and as often as not, wrong. He had a personality we love to hate and a record of accomplishment few could claim.
Monty was married to the British Army and was a dedicated officer whose entire existence was geared to preparing for war and to fighting that war to win. To that end, he demanded the highest standards of conduct, training and performance. Those who failed to live up to his standards were ruthlessly replaced by men who could. In the disastrous wake of Dunkirk in 1940 Montgomery began training the men under his command with both relish and a hardnosed insistence on performance. "His first priority was fitness," notes historian Alastair Horne, "’physical and mental,’ quoting with relish his favorite lines from Kipling;
Subscribe Today
Nations have passed away and left no trace,
And history gives the naked cause of it -
One single, simple reason in all cases;
They fell because their peoples were not fit.1
The relevance of Montgomery’s insistence on fitness has a modern day parallel. In the July 4, 2005 edition of The Boston Globe the Associated Press reported that, "Besides terrorists, germ warfare, and nuclear weapons, military officials increasingly worry about a different kind of threat – troops too fat too fight. Weight issues plague all branches of the military, from elite Marines to the Air Force . . . ‘This is quickly becoming a national security issue for us,’" noted one colonel. During World War II, this was a problem quickly solved by Montgomery: the unfit or those overweight were quickly weeded out. In his command even staff officers ran weekly seven-mile runs. These doctrines were among those he brought to each of his wartime commands. This is but one example of a general who was ahead of his time.
Like that of his adversary, Erwin Rommel, and his ally George S. Patton, Montgomery’s reputation was exemplified by his forceful personality, a trait possessed by all successful battlefield commanders. Like "Ike," Montgomery was instantly recognizable by the single nickname – "Monty." The British soldier had a reassuring sense that their commanding general not only knew what he was doing but would look out for their welfare, and, most important of all – their lives. Rommel, Patton, and Montgomery made such a deep impression upon their men that they, in turn, felt a bond with their commander that all would be well as long as he led them. All three made their presence felt by personal visits to their troops to motivate in times of uncertainty. A British writer has described such men as "characters." "Soldiers love a character, whether he happens to be their platoon commander, C.O., or commander-in-chief. Montgomery was a genuine character, a born exhibitionist with a sense of the dramatic and with tremendous confidence in himself."2
Fearless, and occasionally foolhardy in his public and private utterances, Montgomery was thoroughly disliked by many of his contemporaries for the usual reasons: jealousy and rivalry. However, right or wrong, Montgomery was scrupulously honest in his opinions which, combined with his rasping personality, attracted legions of detractors, both during the war and since, especially some American historians who have been unable or unwilling to judge him fairly. Yet, as was said of Admiral Ernie King’s appointment by FDR, Montgomery was not picked for high command because he was pleasant or a gentleman. In fact, what separated Montgomery from his peers was that he was unafraid to be unpopular.3 In short, neither Monty’s personality nor his sexuality is the criteria by which he should have been judged – then or now.
He was a consummate professional soldier at a time when Britain was desperate for competent battlefield commanders, not chivalry. Indeed, one of the ills of the British Army was that it was staffed with far too many "nice chaps." No one ever referred to Bernard Law Montgomery as a "nice chap."
An accomplished student of war like Patton and Eisenhower, Montgomery spent the interwar years studying, writing and preparing for the world war he too was convinced would one day occur. At first sight, Montgomery neither inspired nor intimidated. "He had not [Gen. Sir Claude] Auchinleck’s impressive presence, nor the handsome, martial bearing of Alexander, nor the rugged, bulldog features of Wavell."4 Habitually dressed in a nondescript uniform of his own design, Montgomery’s five foot seven inch frame, hawk-like features, thinning hair, high-pitched voice and, although born an Ulsterman, his English accent, all added to the impression far more reminiscent of a faceless civil servant than a general. Indeed, Omar Bradley’s aide once described Montgomery, "with his corduroy trousers, his enormous loose fitting gabardine coat and his beret" as resembling "a poorly tailored bohemian painter."5
Those who misjudged him on the basis of first impressions were soon disabused of their lapse. Montgomery’s most striking feature was his penetrating grey-blue eyes, which literally flashed with authority and determination and exuded the air of authority characteristic of all great commanders.6 Correspondent John Gunther thought he possessed, "the most piercing and luminous blue eyes I have ever seen."7 Montgomery’s lack of physical presence was more than compensated for by the magnetism with which he dominated the British Eighth Army. Other than [Field Marshal Sir Alan] Brooke [the Chief of the Imperial General Staff], whom he both respected and rather feared, no one intimidated Montgomery, not even Churchill with whom he maintained a spirited professional relationship that was devoid of the warmth and intimacy the prime minister enjoyed with men like Eisenhower and Alexander. Thus, while Montgomery seemed to have had Churchill’s ear, he never seemed to have had his heart. Churchill once said of him that he was "indomitable in retreat; invincible in advance; insufferable in victory!"
[continued on next page]
Montgomery demonstrated the insececurity of a short man at almost every opportunity .While choosing in Africa to build up a public persona , Rommel’s legend is strictly accomplishment based .While seeking out ways to annoy superiors , he demanded unconditional obediance from subordinates .Eisenhower’s task was far above anything a Montgomery could have accomplished because of his insecurities .He wasn’t interested in getting the job done , but claiming the creadit for it was his aim as well as denying that credit to others .A small man in many ways , very similar to Patton and McCarthur . Average generals not in the catagory of a Rommel or a Zukov
Ah, bull. Another cad who watched the film “Patton” and things Monty climbed to the top of the mountain by falling there. Montgomery was the best general of WWII and would even be effective in the modern era.
[...] Originally Posted by dalem Of course I can. And I do. I find his ability to build up and motivate an army to be first rate, and his ability to use it in the field to be abysmal. Well, you haven’t given your evidence for this assertion at all, Dale. If it’s just based on unrepentant critics like Martin Blumenson, or a fanboi like Nigel Hamilton, it’s useless. A more balanced approach to this controversial figure is here: Armchair General Magazine – We Put YOU in Command! Monty: World War II’s Most Misunderstood Ge… [...]
[...] [...]
Monty beat Rommel…EVERY time they came up face to face. Monty’s Market Garden was almost successful, while Patton was mired down in Metz for 3 months.
Bottom line: You cannot judge a person’s skill based upon their personality. Sometimes, real @#@$@’s are the best at what they do.
[...] [...]
“General Montgomery’s plan was a failure. It not only failed to encircle and trap the Germans, it also failed in that it lost and wasted thousands of tons of supplies that could have been used by other armies (especially the Third Army) to continue their successful attacks. Because none of the plans were accomplished, it was also a waste of many soldier’s lives. Lastly, it caused unnecessary destruction in the Netherlands. After it was all over, Prince Bernard of the Netherlands said, “My country can never again afford the luxury of another Montgomery success.”"
http://pattonhq.com/textfiles/thirdhst.html
The 3rd Army, under Patton, did well when mopping up scattered fleeing Germans. When it hit Metz, it hit a brick wall, a wall Monty would have crumbled in the 1/3rd of the time.
“Eisenhower’s decision created a shortage of gasoline and other necessary supplies that were badly needed by the Third Army to keep up its fast-paced advance. Without these supplies the Third Army was forced to slow down and finally to halt its rapid advance.
This was another decision made by Eisenhower and his officers at SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) that would become very controversial later. Many people thought, and still think, that if the Third Army had not been stopped when it was, it might have been able to bring the war to a close by the end of 1944, instead of the middle of 1945.”
http://pattonhq.com/textfiles/thirdhst.html
Monty kept on taking supplies that Patton needed to keep advancing. If he hadn’t, Metz would have been taken much faster. And on another note, the 3rd army was on the front lines, not “mopping up fleeing germans.” They left the up to the other armies. They were always advancing, and had the BEST record of any army of WWII.
Seriouslynow
Your comments seemed based on British national pride rather than reality. Monty had a history of ignoring orders, causing massive loss of life and allowing German armies to escape solely because of his ego.
His record as a commander has consistently been under attack by objective historians who correctly view him as a general who would rather prolong the war and cause mass death rather than have anyone become vicorious other than him and his army no matter what the cost. The Americans should have insisted that Monty be relieved of command in order for continued financial and armament support to the British.
Montgomery brazenly trashed American fighting capabilites when the reality was that the Americans were the best fighting men in the world in World War II and did not allow the Germans time to dig in and rearm themselves while they took a day off “for tea”. American generals would have never said such things about British soldiers as did Monty about the Americans.
While the Americans had their prima donnas, Patton and McArthur, these generals are largely lauded by historians, particularly in their effective use of military strategy. No general in the Allied Forces is more loathed by history than Montgomery.
From what I read about ‘Monty’, he was an old style typ’o'general. Very authoritarian, close to his troops and highly believing in British Empire. Hence even his military genius (proven in field), Allies, especially Americans ‘were not fond of him’. I think it’s mostly US as the commanding state of western front that has created such evil image of him.
Apropos Patton, Montgomery would never send his men to certain death. Now we can argue if Patton’s punch through Sigfried line and run on Berlin was worth the casualties but whether we compare their tactics or not Monty managed pull his men out of most trouble.
Another issue is that allied hq was full of ego-bearers so from press arena, it were those with better political connections that are known as heroes.
he was a good leader : )