Subscribe Today

• Subscribe to Armchair General Magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!
 

Perhaps the most controversial of the Allied World War II battlefield generals, Montgomery became a lightning rod of controversy both for his perceived arrogance and, all too often, for simply being right. He was one of the few to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the British Army of World War II which, as historian Sir Michael (Lord) Howard, a veteran of the desert war and holder of a Military Cross for valor, has observed, "was not very good."⁸ During the interwar years its leadership had failed to develop a common doctrine of employment for the infantry, and its use of armor proved unimaginative and ineffective on the sands of the Libyan desert.

Historian Eric Larrabee has written that, "The prewar British army was idea-resistant to a degree . . . and it had no George Marshall to weed out deadwood and nurture the gifted. The strategy of poking at the perimeter of Europe and hoping for the best was not sophisticated, it was merely the acceptance of the inability to do anything else."⁹

To the dismay of professionals like Brooke, the British Army chain of command was rife with far too many "good old boys" whose chief qualification for their rank and position was by virtue of their social class rather than their proficiency as soldiers. The higher ranks of the British Army were populated with men Brooke wanted desperately to remove but could not because there were no qualified men to replace them. As Lord Noel Annan notes, "The British officer between the wars was not the professional he is today. The Army provided him with a life in which hunting, shooting and playing games was almost considered to be part of his work . . . He knew the points of a horse, not of a tank. He cared for his men, but his horizon rarely rose above the regimental mess."¹⁰

Moreover, too many of Britain’s future generals had died as promising young officers during World War I which had claimed the lives of a million men whose crosses filled the cemeteries that sprouted like mushrooms in the war’s aftermath. During the dark days in Britain after the humiliation of Dunkirk, Brooke lamented, "How poor we are in Army and Corps commanders. We ought to remove several but heaven knows where we shall find anything very much better."¹¹

Like Eisenhower, Montgomery sprang from the relative obscurity of the middle ranks of the Regular officer corps and despite an impressive record during World War I; he too languished during the interwar years. In a tradition-filled army where being a "nice chap" was considered de rigueur, Montgomery, the outsider, wore his nonconformity as a badge of honor and refused to respect such constraints. New Zealand’s General Sir Bernard Freyberg, holder of the Victoria Cross, who once called Montgomery a "little bastard" also proclaimed, "If Montgomery is a cad, it’s a great pity that the British Army doesn’t have a few more bounders."¹²

Monty’s character traits intensely annoyed the old guard of the British Army. An example of its absurd class-consciousness was a remark by [Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur, later Lord] Tedder that, "the trouble with Monty was that he was anything but a ‘nice chap,’" and another by Field Marshal Lord Gort that: "In dealing with him one must remember that he is not quite a gentleman."¹³

In the hidebound, élitist British Army, Montgomery was the ultimate outsider, an anti-authoritarian, black sheep "Colonial" in an exclusive old-boy’s club where one’s lineage and social standing counted for more than one’s ability. His official biographer, Nigel Hamilton, notes, "Monty’s genius – as Rommel’s – would be to see, instinctively and in a manner that had eluded the callous commanders of World War I, that great military leadership in a people’s century could still be achieved, despite the mechanical, inhumane nature of ‘total war’ . . ."¹⁴ Montgomery was the first British general to openly signal his rebellion and his disdain for membership in this exclusive club by his refusal to wear conventional military dress. What counted was only that his troops received his message loud and clear.

Possessed of a priceless asset in the same stubborn, bulldog-like traits as Churchill, little ever daunted him. It took far more than another "nice chap" in September 1942 when Montgomery assumed command of a beaten and dispirited Eighth Army which had been pushed all over the western desert and humiliated by Rommel. "The bad old days are over," he said, "a new era has dawned." Issuing perhaps his most famous order, Montgomery threw down the gauntlet by ordering all previous plans for retreat to be burned. "We will fight the enemy where we now stand; there will be no withdrawal and no surrender. If we cannot stay here alive, then let us stay here dead!" The impact was electric.

Montgomery shrewdly recognized his army’s limitations and never asked them to carry out missions for which they were not capable. As a senior RAF officer, Air Vice-Marshal E.J. Kingston-McCloughry, has written," It was sheer leadership, character, courage, self-confidence, showmanship and ‘drama’ . . ."¹⁵

It was his traits of outrageous behavior and showmanship that catapulted Montgomery to fame. Churchill not only condoned but also encouraged individualism, which mirrored his own eccentric behavior. Once, when a critic complained that Montgomery was wearing unauthorized badges on his bush hat, Churchill retorted, "If I thought that badges would make my other generals as good as Monty I would order them all to wear badges."¹⁶

Monty’s relations with Dwight Eisenhower during the last two years of the war were often difficult and thoroughly tested Ike’s patience. Although Ike disdained men with mammoth egos, the two men had more in common than either realized. Both were driven by a passionate hatred of the evils of Nazism and a fierce desire to smite their common enemy on the field of battle. And, both were unsparingly candid in their private, often critical, opinions of their fellow professional soldiers.

The most significant difference between the two men was what historians Dominick Graham and Shelford Bidwell called Monty’s fundamentalism. "Nothing would induce him to compromise between what he considered militarily sound and the politically desirable,"¹⁷ whereas Eisenhower frequently sought compromise, if for no other reason than to assuage the demands of having to answer to too many masters. What Montgomery saw as black and white was to Eisenhower a multi-hued color. Unconcerned with anything but what he deemed militarily sound, Monty’s candor and refusal to compromise was both a strength and a source of friction with Eisenhower and others. Outspoken to a fault, where others would sugarcoat, Montgomery would publicly lambaste. A modern day counterpart that comes to mind is Senator John McCain of Arizona.

[continued on next page]

Help Armchair General by bookmarking to