I clicked it but i just got a regular install

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

That's a good one!

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 Monty was an officer for earlier times.

@@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.

That’s awesome hahaha

lol, that about sums him up.

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.

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

He was a master of the set-piece battle.

@@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.’

@@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.

Patience

I would have loved to have met him!

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

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

He liked the juniors alright read THE FULL MONTY

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.

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

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.

Criminally underrated comment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting insight. Thanks for posting.

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

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

Where did Montgomery fail ?

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

@@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'

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

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

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

@@johnburns4017 You beat me to it.

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?

@@davemac1197 He will when he wakes up.

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

@@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.

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

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.

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

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

Underrated comment

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Your grandad was jack job

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."

@@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'.

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

I hope all the Americans making insulting comments about a man they had never even met take note! Thank you for posting.

To be honest if he was autistic that might have been one of the reasons he made a good general. The ability to think creatively is a characteristic of mild autism.

I suspect Marshall may have had Asperger's as well. The formality and structure of the military appeals to autism too well.

@@agentduck9285 Autism may also explain his lack of tact as well as lack of awareness of it.

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.

@@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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

LOL... he was bald before WWII... so don't feel too bad for him. :)

So what did Montgomery do in Market Garden?

@@davemac1197 failed catastrophically and blamed others. Google exists you know...

@@captainatwar7053 - failed at what? Who did he blame? I'm well read on Market Garden (and I don't mean just Wikipedia) and every time I ask people to justify their statements about Montgomery they can't come up with anything specific. Either put up some specifics or stop trolling.

@@davemac1197 The weather and Ike for not conjuring everything Monty wanted out of thin air.

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.

It was 1 bridge too far. Almost successful.

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.

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

My Grandfather was in the Gordon Highlanders and fought in Northern France after D-Day, he said they hated Monty, but then the Gordons were nearly wiped out

@@McConnachy maybe sentiments changed later in the war? My grandfather was part of the first batch sent over. He fought in North Africa and Italy. We was wounded late in the war but still went back to fly a desk.

​@@chrismillar7593it's almost as if people are complicated and nuanced... and a personal experience with an individual will positively OR negatively color your perception of that individual, almost regardless of what that individual is actually like

@@McConnachy - Monty was not in charge of the BEF in France in 1940, so I can't see why your grandfather hold his regiment's losses against him.

@@28pbtkh23 After D-Day

less assassinations lel

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

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

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

Well thats cause a lot of the supplies went to Monty for Market Garden...

I am pretty sure that mont getting priority of supplies during market garden did not have anything to do with the difference in culture between US and British officers, and it certainly had nothing to do with US tank and AT allocation. It also has nothing to do with the fact that the Brits saw rations as something troops would be sustained on during assaults and active combat, whilst the Americans saw rations as simply the food soldiers are meant to subsist on.

The Brits easily defeated The Germans at Bastogne.

@@irishseven100 That's such a random and loaded statement that I'm not even sure what the point was to say it. Because yeah that's not true, or specific, or even accurate.

They lacked all of this because Eisenhower in his infinite wisdom gave Monty all the supply for Operation: I only spent a week planning this and was to sick to command during this.... I mean Operation: Market Garden. Don't try defending Field Marshall Massive Ego.

What was Ike's decision? They were planning a pincer operation on the Ruhr as exploitation after British 2nd Army and US 1st Army had got their respective Rhine crossings. Market Garden was supposed to be the 2nd Army Rhine crossing, not an attack on the Ruhr as people watching A Bridge Too Far believe.

@@davemac1197 I was making the point that Ike was in command of all forces. Unfortunately, his situation was more difficult than it should have been because of the personalities of Monty and Patton, and potential national rivalry.

Patton and Monty deserved each other.

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.

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

@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

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...

@@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.

@@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.

​@@wk2k11Sure 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.

@@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.

the problem was Gavin not following orders and taking the Waal bridge on landing

Who paid for bombed houses in ww2? In 1939, the government announced that it would pay post war compensation for buildings, furniture and clothing damaged by enemy action. In June 1940, it agreed to make advanced payments to some bombed out families...

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.

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.

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

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.

Uhh, monty threw away a lot of lives during market garden, his bigest loss

@@dogguy8603 no he did not..MG was planned by Brereton and Williams, Ike demanded it and rubber stamped it sadly Gavin of the 82nd messed it up by not taking the Waal bridge on landing.

@@dogguy8603 Just as Patton threw away a lot of lives in the Lorraine campaign.

@@wk2k11 when did I say anything about Patton?

@@dogguy8603 you did not but i think you need to know how wasteful Patton was with his men seeing you wrongly accused Monty of doing so.

The American were dire in Tunisia - rank amateurs. The British, and rightly, were not going to take nonsense from them. The British had all 4x4 vehicles, which the US forces only partially had. The British would made progress against concentrated German forces while asking the American to but up to them is asking for big trouble. John Ellis in _Brute Force_ described Patton's _“much overrated”_ pursuit through Sicily as more of _“a triumphal procession than an actual military offensive.”_ Montgomery to Alexander on July 19th 1943. A letter regarding to Patton and Messina in Sicily: _" ..when the Americans have cut the coast road north of Petralia, one American division should develop a strong thrust eastwards towards Messina so as to stretch the enemy who are all Germans and possibly repeat the Bizerte (Tunisia) manoeuvre (i.e cut them off)"_ Monty wrote in his diary: _"the Seventh American Army should develop two strong thrusts with (a) two divisions on Highway 120 and (b) two divisions on Highway 113 towards Messina. This was all agreed"_ Pages 140/141 of _Monty and Patton: Two Paths To Victory_ by Michael Reynolds. _"[Monty] sent a message to Patton inviting him to come and discuss the capture of Messina. He offered, “Many congratulations to you and your gallant soldiers on securing Palermo and clearing up the western half of Sicily.” Privately, of course, he believed Patton’s Palermo escapade had been a completely wasted effort."_ _"Patton met Monty at Syracuse airfield on the 25th. Expecting the worst and mistrusting his comrade’s intentions, he was astounded when Monty suggested that the Seventh Army should use both the major roads north of Mount Etna (Highways 113 and 120) in a drive to capture Messina. In fact, Monty went even further and suggested that his right hand, or southern, thrust might even cross the inter-Army boundary and strike for Taormina, thereby cutting off the two German divisions facing the Eighth Army; the latter would “take a back seat.”_ - by Michael Reynolds _Monty and Patton: Two Paths To Victory_ _‘Montgomery was heading for Messina too, but the German forces still on the island threw up a tough defence line and it was late July before Montgomery worked his way through them and resumed his advance. Fans of the movie ''Patton'' think they know what happened next. Montgomery marched into Messina at the head of his triumphant troops - to find a smirking Patton waiting for him. Mr. D'Este assures us it didn't happen that way. Patton was indeed trying to beat Montgomery to Messina, but Montgomery would not make a race of it. He wanted only to keep the Germans from escaping and realized Patton was in the best position to accomplish that. In fact he urged Patton to use roads assigned to the Eighth Army.’_ - NY Times 1988/11/27 In Sicily Patton was moving in the west over ground the *Germans had abandoned and still made heavy going of it.* It was arranged with Montgomery that Patton gets to Messina first. His troops did taking the easy route while the British slogged it out with the Germans, reaching Messina only a few hours after Patton. _"Although Brig. Gen. Maxwell Taylor, the artillery commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, described the provisional corps’ advance into northwestern Sicily as_ *_“a pleasure march,_* _shaking hands with Italians asking, ‘How’s my brother Joe in Brooklyn?’ Nicest war I’ve ever been in!” it was in fact extremely unpleasant for many of the GIs who had to march over 100 miles through very rugged country in stifling heat and swirling dust."_ by Michael Reynolds author of _Monty and Patton: Two Paths To Victory_ Bradley: _“Patton was developing as an unpopular guy. He steamed about with great convoys of cars and great squads of cameramen … To George, tactics was simply a process of bulling ahead. Never seemed to think out a campaign. Seldom made a careful estimate of the situation. I thought him a shallow commander … I disliked the way he worked, upset tactical plans, interfered in my orders. His stubbornness on amphibious operations, parade plans into Messina sickened me and soured me on Patton. We learned how not to behave from Patton’s Seventh Army.”_ _The reference to amphibious operations was in relation to three landings made on the north coast of Sicily during the advance to Messina, known to the Americans as end runs. Patton did not in fact interfere in the first successful landing, but he ordered the second to take place earlier than Bradley and Truscott wished, ending in a minor disaster, and he ordered the third to take place despite the fact that the 3rd Division had already advanced beyond the landing site!"_ by Michael Reynolds author of _Monty and Patton: Two Paths To Victory_ More amateurism from the Americans, taking towns unnecessarily slowing down the operation: _"On July 19, Monty had signalled Alexander, outlining his axes of advance around either side of Mount Etna and suggesting that “when the Americans have cut the coast road north of Petralia, one American division should develop a strong thrust eastwards towards Messina so as to stretch the enemy who are all Germans and possibly repeat the Bizerta manoeuvre [i.e., cut them off].”_ *_"This made complete military sense,_* _but by the 17th Patton had persuaded Alexander to allow him to drive toward the northwestern part of the island. When Alexander tried to restrain Patton by sending him a new directive on the evening of the 19th, it was too late. The directive, in accordance with Monty’s suggestion, ordered Patton to first cut the coastal road north of Petralia and only then to move on Palermo. However, the Seventh Army Chief of Staff, Brig. Gen. Hobart Gay,_ *_kept the first part of the message from Patton, ensured that the remainder took a long time to be decoded,_* _and then asked for it to be repeated on the grounds that it had been garbled! By the time this problem had been resolved, the advance guard of Keyes’ provisional corps was already in Palermo and Monty’s idea of an American division helping him, at least in the short term, had been frustrated."_ by Michael Reynolds author of _Monty and Patton: Two Paths To Victory_

Nor his less than gallant, if not illegal, campaign in Ireland in the 1920's

@@kayveen5853 Illegal? In whose terms? You could apply the same argument to Algiers, Malaya, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....etc.

@@kayveen5853 Gallant is irrelevant. As for illegal, under what jurisdiction? The same charge could apply to Northern Ireland, Malaya, Kenya, New Zealand Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan etc...

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

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

@@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.

@@johnfleet235 The way Brooke handled Montgomery is part of why he was CIGS and armchair generals are not. However, Brooke had to be kept away from Americans because of his contempt for many of their officers.

Americans blamed him for Market Garden's failure after they had sabotaged it themselves and he had nothing to do with its planning.

How is it a bad plan? It made maximum use of Artillery and Air power and exploited the Germans ability to counter attack.

British intel was second to none through the entire war, and unduly boosted a lot of egos.

Why are you mentioning a lowly slow US general?

Johnny your failed marshall in the channel had 4 years to cross and only came back with Patton and the rest of the big boys. They let let the wet rat tag along one last time to remember what it feels like

@@bigwoody4704 Rambo, a quiz. Name the US general who *failed* to get over the Westwall in Lorraine? 20 points for the correct answer.

@@bigwoody4704 He didn't come back with Patton though, he arrived well ahead of Patton who was commanding a non-existent army because he wasn't seen to be as useful as the other generals in Operation Overlord, something he then proved to be true during his Lorraine campaign where his units where rocked by reserve units full of deaf, ill or otherwise injured soldiers with no real equipment.

I don't think Monty ever resorted to slapping one of his soldiers as Patton did. As an ex-Officer myself, I can find no excuse other than poor leadership skills for such behaviour.

@@phillipdavies6548 I agree, knowing his men loved and respected Monty is good enough for me . Talking about Monty, I watched a documentary this morning about the tricks we did in Africa, leaving a row of broken trucks by the roadside and a few weeks later replaced them with tanks disguised as trucks , and lines of fake artillery, made to look like fakes to the Germans, one night we changed them for real guns , and caught Rommel by surprise tanks and field artillery destroying his Africa korp and giving Monty a great victory at el alemain and the end of Rommel in north Africa . It was amazing what these people could do, I can't remember the name they were known as, ghost.... ?? My poor old brain, if I don't write it down I forget :) 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

Wow. That's saying a lot.

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.

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

Montgomery was the right man in North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, the Scheldt, the Northern half of the Bulge, and the Rhine.

@@thevillaaston7811 - No argument on that from me - Monty continued to hit the Germans (and importantly avoided any disasters like Crete). IMO, for the good of the allied cause we were lucky to have Eisenhower riding herd on all the egos involved. For example, the “bomber barons” being forced to release the heavy bombers to attack the transportation lines before D Day.

Exactly. He was cautious because he loathed wasting lives. He was a planner who was the best person for the jobs he had. He was obviously a difficult man, as were so many other Generals on both sides. The fact that he was offered positions had nothing to do with his 'connections' and everything to do with his ability to do the thing most important AND avoid wasting the lives of his troops. It's easy to criticise but there were many Generals on the Allied side who contributed brilliantly in bloody difficult conditions and despite their differences. History shows fractured alliances galore. The Allies managed to keep theirs together in all theatres. That is bloody impressive and speaks volumes about those who were able to keep it all going.

@@patrickelliott-brennan8960 Being cautious is a US slur. Monty planned properly. Very professional.

Thank you for your service, and thank heavens we still have people in the military who know what they're doing.

@@johnburns4017 Sure he was johnny have your handler read the Full Monty to you,maybe not you may think it's a love story

@@bigwoody4704 Rambo, a quiz. Name the British Field Marshall who took command of two shambolic US armies in the German Bulge attack? 20 points for the correct answer.

it would be a 1 minute movie

@@johndawes9337 Love it!

How Clarke escaped being disciplined is a mystery to me.

Clark was a disaster

And then there was MacArthur...

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

And then there was Markus Aurelius Clarkus. 😂

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

Really? More of a "one and done" ( El alamein). Not much of a winner at Scily, Falaise, or Market Garden.

This is why you should avoid US documentaries or books written by US authors if you want to learn about history, there is never any peer reviews or fact checking involved.

What a stupid comment as he very rarely ever had the manpower advantage. The British dwindling manpower numbers are usually what held him to a more cautious approach we didn't have the man power or equipment of the United States we could not afford massive offensive pushes. Montgomery understood that the germans had to win the war he just had to last long enough for them to fail, and his approach worked. He gets far more stick than he deserves at least he wasn't patton who needed photos retaken if they where not quite right 😂

@@furiousscotsman2916 It seems that Patton had a staff of 50 for press and PR matters. Every Press statement from Patton's headquarters was headed up like 'General Patton's Third Army this, General Patton's Third Army that, and so on.

@donchoq Montgomery had a 1.65 to 1 advantage at Alamein. For Husky, where he was alongside US forces, it was 1.5 to 1. For his part in Italy, it was Corps v Corps, and Division v Division. For Overlord (British Canadian and US) it seems that it 1.25 to 1: ARTHUR BRYANT TRIUMPH IN THE WEST 1943-46 COLLINS, ST JAMES’S PLACE, LONDON 1959 P243-244 'July 27th'. ‘it is equally clear that Ike has the very vaguest conception of war! I drew his attention to what your [Montgomery's] basic strategy has been, i.e. to hold with your left and draw Germans on to the flank whilst you pushed with your right. I explained how in my mind this conception was being carried out, that the bulk of the armour had continuously been kept against the British. He could not refute these arguments, and then asked whether I did not consider that we were in a position to launch a major offensive on each front simultaneously. I told him that in view of the fact that the German density in Normandy was 2½ times that on the Russian front whilst our superiority in strength was only in the nature of some 25% as compared to 300% Russian superiority on eastern front. Such a procedure would definitely not fit in with our strategy of mopping up Brest by swinging forward western flank.” ’ Shall I go on?..

@@thevillaaston7811 1.25 advantage to attack entrenched positions 😆 🤣 goes against all conventional military wisdom. But plsse do go on tell us how he had a numbers advantage in a handful of battles.

Truth villa I've been to Ontario and Quebec more times than you've been to Piccadilly to see the commandos - with John Burns. The Canucks aren't fond - as is expected So villa deletes his post like his hero Monty he has the spine of a gummy bear

Dieppe, Hong Kong, D-Day, liberating the Low Countries. We in Britain know exactly what Canadians did in our fight for freedom from fascism. Remember most Canadians back then were emigrants from Britain.

Not really,french canadians were there 1st.And the Irish and/or Scottich consider themselves that.But that is directed at the ass Monty/Crown and not the people

@@bigwoody4704 I can assure you most Scots consider themselves British. Northern Irish, the same. Many Irish fought for Britain. As for the period, Quebec had seen their mother country fall to the Germans. I suspect they too found some motivation.

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

@@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".

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.

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

Simpson never attempted to counter his superior, Monty. Then all went well.

think most admired his ability to fail upwards.

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

@@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.

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

@@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.

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

My father served under Montgomery in North West Europe. He had no opinion of him, he never met him.

@@bigwoody4704 well at least Villa had a dad, unlike you..yours took one look at you and fled the trailer leaving his sister/wife to bring you up..

@@johndawes9337 Just think, a quick one in the back of a car, somewhere in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 20+ years ago, had such a tragic consequence.

He should have been fired at the Bulge for gross incompetence.

Sorry, but Monty was slow and ineffective unless he had an overwhelming advantage. He consistently failed to do anything right when there wasn't a distinct, laid-out plan involved. The man liked his graphs and maps too much. Sometimes, you just need to take action, not sit down and have a bloody tea break.

Says the armchair general. How many men’s lives have you been responsible for?

The reason for going for the Rhine crossing with British 2nd Army first before clearing the approaches to Antwerp was because the Germans were still off balance following their withdrawal from Normandy. The port capacity of Antwerp was needed to support Eisenhower's broad front strategy for advances into Germany - they could not all be supported without a major port to supply them. If Montgomery had stopped 2nd Army and prioritised clearing the Scheldt with Canadian 1st Army first, then a later advance to the Rhine with 2nd Army would have obviously been more difficult. Also, at the time he cancelled the original Arnhem operation (COMET) on 10 September, because of the worsening intellignce picture (II.SS-Panzerkorps had just arrived in the eastern Netherlands), he had also been informed about the V-2 rocket threat to London just the day before and a northwards advance to Arnhem and the Zuider Zee (Ijsselmeer) took on more urgency. He proposed the upgrade to the operation using three airborne divisions instead of one and Eisenhower readily agreed to it. He appreciated that Churchill had problems at home with the V-2, he was under pressure to use 1st Allied Airborne Army, and also the fact Antwerp could wait. To overrule that decision, you would have to have a compelling, and more immediate, reason for doing so. People seem to think Montgomery made a mistake in not clearing the Schedlt first because he admitted after the war in his memoirs that he made a mistake, but it was in thinking the Canadians could do it on their own while he was going for the Ruhr (with 2nd Army). I think it's important to realise that he was overestimating the Canadian's ability to do this, or underestimating the difficulty of the job, but also the Scheldt was in the Canadian sector and outside that of British 2nd Army. The plan was for the Canadians to re-position themselves around Antwerp, instead of pursuing the 15.Armee up the coast, relieving British 11th Armoured Division (which had taken Antwerp on 4 September) so that it could join VIII Corps on the right flank of MARKET GARDEN, and then prepare for operations to clear the Scheldt while MARKET GARDEN was underway. MARKET GARDEN was due to be completed within a few days and then pause on the Ijssel River while Antwerp was being opened up by the Canadians and US 1st Army was expected to make its approach to the Rhine further south. Once those operations had been completed and the port was receiving supplies, the next phase in Eisenhower's broad front strategy was a Ruhr encirclement with Dempsey's 2nd Army from their Ijssel bridgeheads in the north and Hodges' Rhine bridgehead in the south. Clearing the Scheldt first was not only unncessary to support advances up to the Rhine, but it would also have delayed those operations, giving the Germans time to recover and strengthen their defence lines. Montgomery also pointed out in his 10 September meeting with Eisenhower that an advance north to Arnhem would help make the opening of Antwerp easier, but he noted that Eisenhower did not accept that analysis. Nevertheless, Eisenhower agreed with the northward advance and agreed that it would open up potential for exploitation in future operations.

@@davemac1197 "Montgomery later admitted that he was wrong to assume the Canadians could open the approaches to Antwerp while his forces tried to reach Germany. But his timing was off. The Canadians began fighting around Antwerp in early October, after Market Garden had ended. So, our original question prompts another: Why did it take to the middle of October for Montgomery to support the embattled Canadians and make Antwerp a priority?" Legion Should Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery have tried to clear the Scheldt Estuary in September 1944?

@@nickdanger3802 - what are you talking about? His timing was not off? "The Canadians began fighting around Antwerp in early October, after Market Garden had ended." - Correct! Where is his timing off? You're a real goofball.

@@nickdanger3802 Then why didn't Eisenhower cancel the useless assault on Brest and prioritise clearing the Schedlt?

Monty was fully aware of the need to clear the Scheldt to make Antwerp operational, he just underestimate the strength required to do it, and believed his 21st Army Group reinforced by Allied Airborne Army would be strong enough to both clear the Scheldt and go for a Rhine crossing. He was wrong. But his over-estimation of his own forces capabilities and under-estimation of the Germans was not unusual for this point in the war in West Europe, as the general belief amongst the Allied High Command was that the Germans were still broken from their defeat in Normandy and were not strong enough to prevent the Allied Armies from advancing across the entire front.

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.

@@Ryan-fh8quit’s a discussion worth having. Nobody is downplaying the United struggle against fascism.

Turning up 2.5 years late probably didn't help

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

His memoirs were so inaccurate that when they came out during Ike's presidency, Ike nearly recalled all of his generals to Washington to write a rebuttal. Someone gently pointed out that there was a Cold War on, and doing that might muddle things...

No need to put Market Garden aside. It was compromised by American officers in the planning at 1st Allied Airborne Army and on the ground by a regiment commander at Nijmegen with a poor performance history in Normandy. Montgomery had nothing to do with these failures and short of cancelling the operation (as he did with Comet because of the intelligence) there was nothing he could do about it because of inter-allied politics.

Did we watch the same video? The video creator pretty clearly outlines tons of reasons why Americans may not have liked him and literally none of them have anything to do with him being “foreign”

@@systemicthinking - sorry, but that's one of the many myths created by A Bridge Too Far. Montgomery cancelled Operation COMET (scheduled for 8 September and delayed by weather until 10 September) on the morning of 10 September at 0200 hours just as troops were about to board their aircraft. The reason for the cancellation was that Montgomery had just received intellligence reports that II.SS-Panzerkorps with the 9.'Hohenstaufen' and presumably the 10.'Frundsberg' divisions had moved into the Veluwe/Achterhoek regions (west and east banks of the River Ijssel). In fact they had just arrived on 7/8 September. Montgomery had a meeting with Eisenhower later that day at Brussels airport on board his aircraft (Eisenhower had a leg in a cast and couldn't walk easily) and proposed an upgraded operation using three airborne divisions instead of just the British 1st Airborne at Arnhem, Nijmegen, and Grave, with the attached Polish Brigade. The upgrade (provisionally called Operation SIXTEEN and then called MARKET) would allow 1st Airborne and the Poles with their combined 84 anti-tank guns (including 16 of the 17-pounder guns that can take on Panthers and Tigers) to concentrate at Arnhem, while the American divisions would secure the main supply route through Eindhoven, Grave and Nijmegen. The reduced condition of the two SS divisions to regimental battlegroups of mostly logistics troops was known because it was British units that had reduced them in Normandy, the reason they were in the Netherlands in a rear area was to refit. Generalfeldmarshall Model was known to have less than 100 operational tanks in his entire Heeresgruppe B from Aachen to the North Sea coast - in fact his returns for September totalled 84 panzers listed as operational, by a stunning coincidence - it's remarkable how the universe works. By contrast, Montgomery's 21st Army Group had 2,400 tanks, and the US 1st Army facing Model's 7.Armee at Aachen had about 1,500. I'm currently reading volumes from a new series of booklets on individual Troops (platoons) of the 1st Airlanding Anti-Tank Battery at Arnhem by Nigel Simpson, Secander Raisani, Philip Reinders and Dutch armour expert Marcel Zwarts. Each volume includes an introduction that makes clear that the Battery commander, Major William Arnold, "was briefed, contrary to previously published reports, that there was likely a large concentration of German armour in the Arnhem area on landing." It was one of the reasons the gliders land first in British Airborne doctrine, because they also carry the heavy weapons, whereas US doctrine was paratroops first. The volumes on the 17-pounder Troops (D and P Troops), states they were even told to expect Panthers and Tigers (suggesting a 1944 panzer division or panzerbrigade and a korps schwere panzerabteilung), and this is the way 'sanitised' intelligence from Ultra decrypts is passed down to lower formations, but only the Army and Army Group commanders (like Dempsey and Montgomery) had knowledge even of the existence of Ultra. Ultra was not made public until 1974, the same year Ryan's unfinished A Bridge Too Far was rushed to publication, because of his terminal cancer. When Cornelius Ryan wrote that 1st Airborne were not warned of the presence of II.SS-Panzerkorps in the area, he was either being disingenuous or simply didn't know that the identifications could not be passed down to the troops, but appropriate warnings could, without the specifics. Another example - Gavin was told Nijmegen might contain "a regiment of SS" and the Reichswald may contain a tank laager, and this was because the precise location of the 10.SS-Panzer-Division (reduced to a regimental battlegroup) had not been identified by the Dutch resistance, and they may be drawing new tanks from a tank depot thought to be near Kleve (it was actually near Münster). The infamous aerial photo story was based entirely on Ryan's interview with Browning's Corps Intelligence Officer Major Brian Urquhart (renamed 'Fuller' in the film). The photo was 'lost' and Browning had already passed away unable to defend himself. When the photo emerged from a Dutch government archive in 2015 (donated after the war by the RAF to help with reconstruction), it was analysed and found to show older Mark III and Mark IV tanks with the short barrelled 7.5cm kanon, eliminating a 1944 panzer division as the likely owner. We now know they belonged to a training unit, had broken down and were photographed undergoing maintenance at a supply dump, and on 17 September were camped opposite the 506th PIR (101st Airborne) drop zone near Son, where they were shot up by escorting USAAF aircraft. Browning had made the right call to dismiss it and it was probably right that Brian Urquhart was sent on medical leave. After the war, he was a civil servant who was instrumental in setting up the useless United Nations organisation and served as Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs, whatever that means! At the end of the battle at Arnhem bridge, the Germans captured stocks of unspent 6-pounder anti-tank gun rounds, because after losing three tanks at the bridge the Germans were very wary of sending them too far forward. They held back most of their tanks until the Arnhem bridge could be cleared, so they could be sent south over the bridge towards Nijmegen to stop Montgomery's tanks on the 'island'. The fact is that there's a 'conventional narrative' on MARKET GARDEN, established by Cornelius Ryan's research and used by many subsequent historians, that has only in the last 10-12 years been challenged by a new generation of researchers going back to primary sources. I liken it to the conventional narrative that OBL was still hiding in a cave in Afghanistan until one determined CIA analyst tracked him down to a house in Abbottabad Pakistan, less than a mile from their military staff academy. Revision is not only justified, it is essential, if the true story is to become public. Sources: Arnhem: The Air Reconnaissance Story, Air Historical Branch (Royal Air Force 2016, 2nd ed 2019) Lost At Nijmegen, RG Poulussen (2011) Arnhem: Myth and Reality: Airborne Warfare, Air Power and the Failure of Operation Market Garden, Sebastian Ritchie (2011, revised 2019) Put Us Down In Hell - A Combat History of the 508th PIR in WW2, Phil Nordyke (2012) September Hope - The American Side of a Bridge Too Far, John C McManus (2012) The 508th Connection, Zig Boroughs (2013), chapter 6 - Nijmegen Bridge Little Sense Of Urgency - an operation Market Garden fact book, RG Poulussen (2014) Arnhem 1944: An Epic Battle Revisited vols 1 and 2, Christer Bergström (2019, 2020)

Yeah - I remember that derogatory line in SPR. It proves that the yanks just can't resist any opportunity to put that man down. I think that they're just jealous of his success.

@@28pbtkh23 I'm surprised that scene has not been uploaded on utube lol. Can you imagine the massive tug of war that would occur in the comments

not strictly true matey....Although the first American troops arrived in Europe in June 1917, the AEF did not fully participate at the front until October, when the First Division, one of the best-trained divisions of the AEF, entered the trenches at Nancy, France. Pershing wanted an American force that could operate independently of the other Allies, but his vision could not be realized until adequately trained troops with sufficient supplies reached Europe. Training schools in America sent their best men to the front, and Pershing also established facilities in France to train new arrivals for combat. Throughout 1917 and into 1918, American divisions were usually employed to augment French and British units in defending their lines and in staging attacks on German positions. Beginning in May 1918, with the first United States victory at Cantigny, AEF commanders increasingly assumed sole control of American forces in combat. By July 1918, French forces often were assigned to support AEF operations. During the Battle of St. Mihiel, beginning September 12, 1918, Pershing commanded the American First Army, comprising seven divisions and more than 500,000 men, in the largest offensive operation ever undertaken by United States armed forces. This successful offensive was followed by the Battle of Argonne, lasting from September 27 to October 6, 1918, during which Pershing commanded more than one million American and French soldiers. In these two military operations, Allied forces recovered more than two hundred square miles of French territory from the German army. By the time Germany signed the Armistice on November 11, 1918, the American Expeditionary Forces had evolved into a modern, combat-tested army recognized as one of the best in the world. The United States had sustained more than 320,000 casualties in the First World War, including over 53,000 killed in action, over 63,000 non-combat related deaths, mainly due to the influenza pandemic of 1918, and 204,000 wounded.1 In less than two years the United States had established new motorized and combat forces, equipped them with all types of ordnance including machine guns and tanks, and created an entirely new support organization capable of moving supplies thousands of miles in a timely manner. World War I provided the United States with valuable strategic lessons and an officer corps that would become the nucleus for mobilizing and commanding sixteen million American military personnel in World War II.

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

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

@@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 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.

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

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

but knew his job

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

@@lyndoncmp5751 Best sort of commander. imho

Holly. Wood is a historian of such great renown and his sourcing is impeccable.

Nah! Monty did not tolerate amateurs.

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.

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

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.

Ah yes the great leader that used the classic tactic of "Fuck it let's slam into the enemy in a frontal assault causing massive losses of men and equipment but somehow it worked so I get the glory of breaking Rommel, so long as you ignore what was actually wrong with the British army in North Africa before I arrived."

I am trying see something right in what you wrote.

I don't think that there has been an 'English army' since the 17th Century; but perhaps someone more knowledgeable can educate me.

Patton's losses were no higher than other US generals. IWM "Despite his popularity with soldiers and civilians, Montgomery was perceived by many military leaders as tactless and arrogant - he was difficult to work with and did not get along with other commanders. He aggressively tried to protect British interests within the international alliance, which caused conflict with the Americans, and he thought Eisenhower was ill-equipped for the task at hand." A Who's Who of D-Day page

Not really...

Sorry, don't get it.

😂 good one

i suggest you read books instead of comics...1500 miles in 19 days in awful weather fighting all the way and you call him slow..this gentleman said this about Monty....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.’.......bets general in the MTO and ETO.. seeing you are so well read what do you think about Monty been given 2 American armies over American officers the 1st and the 9th at St Vith..maybe because he was the best

Get your ankle monitor removed Dawes and perhaps they'll let you into a library.It's alright Monty didn't drown they got him out - looked like a drowned rat though

i say you are telling porky pies about reading a book..you saw the movie patton and think it is a documentary..

@@johndawes9337 And I say that you are wrong. I did watch the movie Patton, and it was pretty close to fact when it came to Montgomery. However, in the book he was always complaining about Patton keeping him from his deserved place. You are free to believe what you want, even if you are wrong. 👍

@@stevenbass732if you seriously think the movie was pretty close to factual you need your head looking at mate..i bet you still believe in santa clause..as for Monty complaining about patton keeping from his deserved place I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE.

@@johndawes9337 Whatever you say. Obviously you know better than Montgomery himself. I do think that you are prone to exaggeration and hyperbole but that's okay. That's probably what you are best at.

But Montgomery had to take scant forces nearly 400 miles from Reggio to the River Sangro, over many, many rivers, which the German blew the bridges on in turn, as they retreated, with Montgomery having adhere to Eisenhower's plan, which Montgomery had warned against. A plan that split allied forces to keep them hundreds of miles apart. General Mark Clark left British and US forces in the lurch while he went after personal glory in Rome.

Montgomery wasn't even in Italy when Montecassino and Anzio happened. And people loved Clark so much I'm pretty sure he was the only one whose WWII conduct was actually investigated by Congress.

Also Montgomery advance up to Salerno was about as quick as Patton's to Palermo but jingoistic history and puffed up PR made one to be "genius" and the other "slow&plodding".