Why Did The Americans Hate Monty?

  görünümler 618,837

The Intel Report

The Intel Report

Gün önce

Thanks to Call of War for sponsoring this video! Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/qxt... Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery was a highly capable operational commander during the Second World War, with major and critical victories in North Africa, Sicily, France, and Belgium, albiet with some high profile failures. He was loved by his men, but hated by many of his colleagues, especially the high ranking American Generals who faught alongside him in North West Europe. In this video, we look at why he was so hated by the Americans.
Source List:
Beevor, Antony. “Antony Beevor on Eisenhower’s Portrait of Montgomery | Art UK.” Art UK. Accessed February 27, 2023. artuk.org/discover/stories/an....
Beevor, Antony. The Battle of Arnhem: The Deadliest Airborne Operation of World War II. London, UK: Penguin Books, 2019.
Beevor, Antony. Ardennes 1944: Hitler’s Last Gamble. London, UK: Penguin Books, 2016.
Bradley, Omar Nelson, and Clay Blair. A General’s Life: An Autobiography. Norwalk, CT: Easton Press, 1995.
Chester B. Hansen Collection, Box 42, S-7, USAMHI
Danchev, Alex, and Dan Todman. War Diaries, 1939-1945: The Diaries of Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke. London, UK: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2001.
Delaforce, Patrick. The Battle of the Bulge: Hitler’s final gamble. Barnsley, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2014.
Earle, Edward Mead. “Eisenhower, Bradley, and Montgomery.” The Atlantic, June 1946. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/....
Eisenhower, Dwight D. Crusade in Europe: A Personal Account of World War II. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2021.
Mather, Carol. When the Grass Stops Growing: A War Memoir. London, UK: Leo Cooper, 1999.
Montgomery, Montgomery of Alamein, Bernard Law. The Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery. Barnsley, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2005.
R., Crosswell D K. Beetle: The Life of General Walter Bedell Smith. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2012.

@TheIntelReport 3 aylar önce
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/qxtaf2eg
@patricktorres4226 2 aylar önce
I clicked it but i just got a regular install
@Golden-dog88 2 aylar önce
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
@michaelduggan1681 2 aylar önce
A famous yarn about Monty. Eisenhower was having dinner with King George VI, the king asked Ike. "How are you getting on with Monty?" Ike replied "Well.. I think he wants my job." "That's a relief." replied the King. "I thought he wanted mine."
@billolsen4360 2 aylar önce
That's a good one!
@Gungho1a 2 aylar önce
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.
@Desdichado-vs8ls 2 aylar önce
@@Gungho1a Monty was an officer for earlier times.
@Gungho1a 2 aylar önce
@@Desdichado-vs8ls That I agree with. He really never got out of the trenches of WW1. Coincidentally, one of Rommel's desert staff officers observed that Rommel was still the junior officer who fought and won his fame in italy in WW1. The reality for Rommel was that by british standards, he did show outstanding generalship, but by germam standards he was average, and was propped up in the desert by a staff picked for him specifically to strengthen his weaknesses...Rommel was never selected for general staff training, which is a fair indicator of his professional standing. He was lucky he was a hitler favourite, which makes the british hero worship of him rather tasteless. The brits have always shied away from confronting the issue of Rommel's and DAK's support for the einsatzgruppe operating in their rear area.
@MaxLib 2 aylar önce
That’s awesome hahaha
@simmybear31 2 aylar önce
In 1945 Churchill said of him: “Indomitable in retreat, invincible in advance, insufferable in victory.”
@onastick2411 21 gün önce
lol, that about sums him up.
@andrewdavid5928 5 gün önce
I give everyone an even shake, but 40 years of reading WWII history books has led me to one conclusion: Monty was an overrated stooge propped up for PR purposes.
@onastick2411 4 gün önce
@@andrewdavid5928 Well its an opinion I suppose. Shame you wasted 40 years, but that's life.
@rusty-sb1jy 2 aylar önce
My father was a career U.S. Army officer. He served during WWII. He said of Montgomery that he would not move his army until he had every single gallon of gas and every tent stake he wanted.
@haroldflashman4687 2 aylar önce
He was a master of the set-piece battle.
@johndawes9337 2 aylar önce
@@haroldflashman4687 he did very well on the move as well as this gentleman points out,,,,,As Generalfeldmarschall Kesserling noted ‘even a victorious army cannot keep up a pursuit of thousands of miles in one rush; the stronger the army the greater the difficulty of supply. Previous British pursuits had broken down for the same reason.’ and rather admiringly pointed out, ‘the British Eighth Army had marched halfway across North Africa - and over fifteen hundred miles - had spent the bad winter months on the move and in the desert, and had had to surmount difficulties of every kind.’
@haroldflashman4687 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@barbarossa1983 15 gün önce
His patience usually resulted in positive results and less casualties,they definitely had the harder fighting in France out of all the allies and drew the majority of the best German forces away from the Americans,regardless of his faults the US suffered less casualties
@nickdanger3802 15 gün önce
@derrickworthington7351 2 aylar önce
When serving in the RAMC I had the privilege of meeting Field Marshall Montgomery on several occasions in his own home. He wasn’t in good health and needed home care. I spent hours sat next to him whilst he spoke of his experiences. For me it was an honour to be in his company and I will never forget the experience
@chapman9230 Aylar önce
I would have loved to have met him!
@dennishoffman1218 29 gün önce
If I was in his command I would have gone AWOl.
@danielcharnock8975 20 gün önce
​@@dennishoffman1218it's a good job you never served then.
@melkiorwiseman5234 2 aylar önce
It's interesting that Monty was so disliked by his equals, as there's stories that he was well liked by his juniors. There's one particular story which may be apocryphal but still illustrates the point: Monty was discussing discipline in the ranks with a very straight-laced general and Monty was pointing out how there's more to discipline than just obeying "form and presentation". Monty stated that one time, a private had come running across the battleground toward him, yelling out, "Duck, Monty! Duck!" The very prim and proper general responded: "Good Heavens! You court-martialled him, I suppose?" Monty replied, dryly: "No. I ducked. And the shell missed me."
@bigwoody4704 2 aylar önce
He liked the juniors alright read THE FULL MONTY
@chrisblake4198 2 aylar önce
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.
@CC-uq4hu 2 aylar önce
My father was British SAS, close to Monty…we had a pair of his leather gloves. He was respected and loved by his men.
@bigwoody4704 2 aylar önce
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.
@andriharir 3 aylar önce
Being able to handle generals with such great egos makes me think that perhaps Eisenhower was America's greatest gift to the European theater in WW II.
@shillingandlarpingservices4549 3 aylar önce
Criminally underrated comment.
@Nmille98 3 aylar önce
Him knowing when and how to use Monty, Patton, and Bradley, among many others with fewer stars, is why I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.
@tigerwoods373 3 aylar önce
Yeah especially since he never had frontline action some wouldn't respect him as much. I believe he was mainly a logistician so some would question if he knew what he was doing. He didn't just have to deal with certain generals egos, but the competition between American and British generals. Look at the invasion of Sicily, the race between patton and Montgomery.
@thomasmolloy5447 3 aylar önce
Eisenhower is sometimes derided for not being a battlefield general, and there is some limited justice in saying so. But Eisenhower did so incredibly well in the political aspects of being a general, that for that specific aspect of being a general, he is probably the best in the history of the world.
@stevengoodloe3893 3 aylar önce
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.
@JohnHughesChampigny 2 aylar önce
In Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" Montgomery is discussed as an interesting border case -- a commander who displayed many of the features that led to failure in many others, but who was intelligent and self aware enough to recognise those problems in himself and to _deliberately_ work to overcome them -- his whole "friend of the common soldier" schtick was planned -- he knew he was by nature aloof and introverted, so he worked on being the "soldier's soldier" as a way overcoming what he saw in a weakness. Sometimes he succeed in overcoming his nature and had tremendous success, sometimes he failed and looked like a total prat.
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
Interesting insight. Thanks for posting.
@aleccrombie7923 2 aylar önce
At least he didn't rough up a shell shocked soldier!!!!!
@ggoddkkiller1342 2 aylar önce
You don't risk your life on front lines to just push a narrative about yourself...
@garythomas3219 2 aylar önce
Where did Montgomery fail ?
@RobertJones-co5jb 2 aylar önce
My Uncle who was with the 1st US Army stated we did not hate Monty, we just thought he was an arrogant self-centered person. But then again these same troops thought the same on a George S. Patton and a glory-hound to boot. My Uncle served from North Africa to Germany 1942 to 1945.
@tonyrains217 2 aylar önce
Monty was lucky in N. Africa. He was a genuine failure as a commander. Patton did nearly everything right except slap a soldier.
@RobertJones-co5jb 2 aylar önce
@@tonyrains217 Well, that's one opinion, but I think that George S Patton wasted way to many of his own men to achieve his own ego. Hence the nickname 'Old Blood N Guts'
@johnypitman2368 2 aylar önce
god bless the young men who saved the world, now there is great reason to believe the USA is doomed if the same is needed from our youngsters today
@user-vl2zh2ud7h 2 aylar önce
Most of troops under British control not British they from its colonial
@johnwilletts3984 2 aylar önce
Monty was actually Irish by birth. During WW1 he was shot through the lungs as he lay out in no man’s land, a medic sent to rescue him was shot by a sniper and collapsed on top of Monty. The sniper then used the two men for target practice. Monty was shot twice more. A day of so later he was picked up and taken for medical treatment. However the doctors believing him to be dying refused treatment and sent him for burial. A grave was dug and Monty was laid alongside it, but as the diggers waited for him to stop breathing, he moved his hand and so was sent back to the medics for another look and was saved. I think an experience like that would have affected his personality on going.
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
Monty was actually born in London near the Oval cricket ground.
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
@@johnburns4017 You beat me to it.
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
The whole of Ireland was British in 1887, even the bit Montgomery wasn't born in. Which reminds me, has Joe Biden told us which part of Ireland he's from at all?
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
@@davemac1197 He will when he wakes up.
@johnmccabe1974 Aylar önce
My old man joined the Tank Corp (or Royal Tank Regiment) 1938. He fought in France, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. He missed going to Normandy with the 7th Armoured due to catching malaria in Sicily, instead being flown back back to an Algerian hospital. When the US first turned up in Africa in 1942 there was general and mutual animosity between the British and American forces. I hope people reading this today can have the imagination to see why this might occur. As a youngster I took interest in WW2 and can still remember (in the 70's) my father making extremely disparaging remarks about US General Mark Clark. I sometimes wondered what side he fought on when he spoke of certain American officers.
@margaretjiantonio939 29 gün önce
It would've been great if the British and Americans realized that they were fighting the Germans and Italians, not each other.
@wk2k11 29 gün önce
@@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.
@par576 2 aylar önce
When I was 11 in 1947 Monty visited Carlisle and I got close enough to his jeep, after a struggle, to shake his hand. There were huge crowds and he was definitely a hero then.
@Emil.Fontanot 2 aylar önce
That's very interesting and fascinating. You have lived quite the long life.
@ThePierre58 2 aylar önce
My Uncle was in the desert, circa 1943 when the General was touring the front line. Les, said it was like meeting an icon, yet Monty, who had served in the trenches, in the Great War, was buoyant. " a ball of energy" was my uncle's comment.
@catherinelw9365 Aylar önce
Let me guess. And your father shook hands with Lawrence of Arabia. 😂
@ericlarson6390 Aylar önce
Montgomery WAS an icon; he was the hero the British people needed at the time.
@TerminalConstipation 2 aylar önce
I'm an American. It seems to me that Monty understood that while the Germans needed to win the war they had started, he only had to not lose it. He would attack a weakness that he saw, but otherwise he would prepare for the inevitable attack and how best to counterattack. Meanwhile, Patton was of the school that the judicious application of constant maximum aggression was the quickest way to victory. Neither was necessarily wrong, but seen this way, it is easy to understand their dislike of one another.
@TheIntelReport 2 aylar önce
Underrated comment
@colindebourg9012 2 aylar önce
With the huge resources available Patton in men and armour he could afford to make assaults that were costly in men and materials, Monty however used the limited resources he had as efficiently and effectively as possible, just a clash of personalities that's all.
@chrisanderson8207 2 aylar önce
Monty was irrevocably shaped by his experiences in WWI which demonstrated to him that the only way forward was a detailed, coordinated and meticulous combined arms effort. Patton saw much less than a year of combat in WW1 - much of this during the 100 days which led him to believe in aggression and the attack to keep the enemy off balance and to work inside their OODA loop. I'd personally say that their approaches were irrevocably shaped by this difference of experience and that each has their strengths and weaknesses. However I would posit that seen 80 years later, in the context of the Ukraine/Russian war which is the closest analogue to WW1&2 since those wars, I'd say that Montgomery was the more correct of the two.
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
Comparing Montgomery, a man over armies, with an average US general who never did much is ludicrous.
@tjanderson5892 18 saatler önce
Stories like this illustrate exactly why Ike was the perfect man for the job. He is likely the only individual who could have all the respect from the egotistical US Generals Patton and Bradley as well as Monty. He was able to play the game and consider the political implications of every move whereas the Generals under him saw the war for what was best for them and their country. I think in the end Monty realized that Ike’s responsibility was far more than just companding the Allies in the European theater and was the right person to keep himself in check lol. After all was said and done every General that I’m aware of considered Ike a good friend. No other person is getting that sentiment at that time.
@Stupot2030 Aylar önce
That's interesting. My grandad told me he bridged the Rhine under Montgomery's force (he was a sapper in the Royal Engineers) on their way to Berlin, where he was stationed by the end of the war. He told me this in around 1994/5 however and it was 50 years after the event, so likely his memory was failing him a bit. In any event, he had a dog called 'Monty' on account of Montgomery telling grandad what to do for several years and now it was grandad's turn to tell him what to do.
@ericlarson6390 Aylar önce
LOL... OFFICIALLY, Montgomery's forces did cross the Rhine first. Patton actually crossed the night before in order to take advantage of the cover of night, and was happy to have the OFFICIAL crossing as his misdirection-play. The Germans knew Montgomery was coming. How could they not with all the bridging equipment and troop build-up? I always thought that was a brilliant move on Patton's part.
@nickdanger3802 Aylar önce
@@ericlarson6390 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludendorff_Bridge#
@edopronk1303 Aylar önce
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.
@edsouth7167 2 aylar önce
My Grandad was Montgomery's chauffer in North Africa. He always told me how polite and generous he was.
@fnkwhite6382 2 aylar önce
Your grandad was jack job
@Hibernicus1968 Aylar önce
From everything I've read, enlisted men and junior officers who served _under_ Montgomery liked him quite well, because he was a very capable commander who would win battles, and whom they knew would not needlessly spend their lives. It was another story, however, for officers of equal or greater rank, who had to serve alongside or over Monty -- they found his monumental ego, tendency toward self-promotion, and utter lack of anything remotely resembling tact extremely hard to take. This included British senior officers as well as American. Eisenhower's second as supreme Allied commander for the ETO, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder developed a strong dislike for Montgomery. Winston Churchill summed Monty up as "in defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable."
@madgavin7568 Aylar önce
@@Hibernicus1968 Monty's superior Alan Brooke acknowledged than he 'once again I had to haul him (Monty) over the coals for his usual lack of tact'.
@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg 9 gün önce
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
@diannegooding8733 2 aylar önce
Having had the honour of shaking Monty’s hand and talking to him for a short time, one to one. Followed by Monty making a speech, he did appear rather awkward in company. Mild Autism? Certainly possible. However he could definitely speak very inspiringly to his men and had learned serious lessons in WW1, which he never forgot!
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
I hope all the Americans making insulting comments about a man they had never even met take note! Thank you for posting.
@agentduck9285 2 aylar önce
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.
@stevensko9153 Aylar önce
I suspect Marshall may have had Asperger's as well. The formality and structure of the military appeals to autism too well.
@madgavin7568 Aylar önce
@@agentduck9285 Autism may also explain his lack of tact as well as lack of awareness of it.
@samgraham9235 2 aylar önce
Monty was his own worst enemy. Having to control both him and Patton must have been a real challenge for Ike. But perhaps we need people like that to win wars?
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
Monty should have been left in command of all ground forces after Normandy. On 3 Sept 1944 when Eisenhower took over overall allied command of ground forces everything went at a snail's pace. The fastest advance of any western army in Autumn/early 1945 was the 60 mile thrust by the British XXX Corps to the Rhine at Arnhem.
@samgraham9235 2 aylar önce
@@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?
@Billy-I-Am-Not 2 aylar önce
If you put MacArthur, Montgomery, and Patton in a room together, their collective egos could probably bring down the entire building
@wk2k11 2 aylar önce
There's a story that Truman was in a conversation and Wake Island came up, which was where he had a meeting with MacArthur. Truman's comment was "Ah, Wake Island. That's where I met God." Quite similar to the anecdote about Monty, Churchill and King George.
@anondescriptbullet 2 aylar önce
A little known fact is that MacArthur was actually forbidden from travelling on board any vessel smaller than a battleship. This is due to the fact that the overwhelming weight of his ego would cause any smaller ship to begin to sink.
@stoirmslw7195 2 aylar önce
To my knowledge Patton and MacArthur got on very well if I’m remembering correctly they were in the same class at West Point and worked directly with each other in WWI
@spirz4557 2 aylar önce
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.
@wk2k11 2 aylar önce
@@spirz4557 Imagine a round table with MacArthur, Montgomery, Patton, De Gaulle, and Mark Clark.
@joemomma2189 Aylar önce
I feel that Montgomery, just like Harris and Bomber Command (Yes, Dresden was justified, but the operation was done poorly in my opinion), are treated unfairly in the years that have followed. While not the mechanized force they portrayed themselves as, the German's had some of the most experienced and capable soldiers during MG, given that they were pulling so many troops back from the eastern front after their losses at Kursk and Stalingrad. War is a strict teacher, there is no retry's in armed combat, and the fact that at the end Montgomery was alive while many of those german officers were dead, either through Hitler's purges, the SS, or combat related, is testament enough to how effective the general was. His character 'during war' may not speak much, but war isn't something you show your best character in, It's when you put your best character away and you had to have a killer instinct. I think the best description of both Patton and Montgomery i heard was to describe them as 'A hammer and an anvil'. Both were needed to win and let us not forget- unlike our own General 'Blood and Guts' Patton, Montgomery was on the front for the thick of it, while the good general got pulled back after striking his men. Not even the British would do something as stupid as that.
@scurvydog 2 aylar önce
Had a few relatives in both American and Commonwealth forces during Africa/ Italy/ Europe campaigns. By my listening to them I came away with the thought that American/Commonwealth interactions and trust were only slightly better than the German/Italian equivalent. Felt bad for Ike, no wonder he was bald.
@ericlarson6390 Aylar önce
LOL... he was bald before WWII... so don't feel too bad for him. :)
@khankrum1 2 aylar önce
As a child the BBC used to put " Monty" on the TV every Sunday as be presented " How I won the war"! As I grew older I began to consider How egestical he really was ! I can not recall him eber mentioning the Americans! But there again I was a small child at the time!
@SwarmerBees 2 aylar önce
What is baffling is why there is much discussion at all concerning whether people like the character traits of an effective general over one who is ineffective. There are plenty of officers who were nice, well mannered and highly prncipled individuals who simply got their forces obliterated and were rightly relieved. Some commanders got results and others didn't. Popularity contests are irrelevant.
@lochnessmonster5149 2 aylar önce
In Donald Burgett's books about his war experience, he voices the opinions of many paratroopers at the time that the 82nd Airborne should have kidnapped Monty and strung him up for what he did in Market Garden.
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
So what did Montgomery do in Market Garden?
@captainatwar7053 2 aylar önce
@@davemac1197 failed catastrophically and blamed others. Google exists you know...
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@nickdanger3802 2 aylar önce
@@davemac1197 The weather and Ike for not conjuring everything Monty wanted out of thin air.
@defenstrator4660 3 aylar önce
To be fair the Canadians hated him too. Because he wanted the resources for Market Garden the Canadians had to take a pause. This meant they got to invade Belgium after the Germans had a chance to fortify it for a month and meant they got to push on into the Netherlands in the middle of winter.
@captainvladmir7535 3 aylar önce
Taking the Scheldt was utterly vital and Monty should've been sacked for prioritizing Market Garden over it. The Royal Navy straight up told him this.
@Litany_of_Fury 3 aylar önce
It was 1 bridge too far. Almost successful.
@Novafire194 3 aylar önce
As a Canadian? It depends. I have numerous relatives who fought under Monty, (one great grandpa fought under him from north Africa and ended in Italy. The other from Italy to France and into the Netherlands.) Many of them loved him because he made an effort to care about them and not throw their lives away. Montgomery was a person. A complicated and imperfect person. He had successes and his failures, just as every other commander. I personally like him and respect him, as he's (in a weird way) is the reason I exist today. But I understand why people don't like him.
@banzi403 3 aylar önce
EXCUSE ME???? My dad was in the 1st Canadian parachute battalion. Him and his war buddies idolized monty.
@roobear78 2 aylar önce
monty was simply a product british military upbrining at the time, a lot off uk famous military officers didnt play well with others and ww2 was the first real and true allied mix of operations and command. Considering it lead to nato it turned out rather well in the end,even if it was a rocky start
@Aabergm 4 gün önce
What I heard was that he was very good at what he did and while he did listen to others he did not suffer fools, nor willingly kowtow to inferior ideas. Not motivated by ego but victory was direct and blunt which offended people who were ego sensitive. Yeah as I say this the odds of autism sound really high.
@chrismillar7593 2 aylar önce
My grandpa served in the RCAF in North Africa under Monty and the troops generally loved him. He met him I think. As far as I know the American troops didn’t hold a negative view of him at all. If there were disagreements between American leadership and British leadership that didn’t really filter down to the troops.
@McConnachy 2 aylar önce
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
@chrismillar7593 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@timzerby3312 2 aylar önce
​@@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
@28pbtkh23 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@McConnachy 2 aylar önce
@@28pbtkh23 After D-Day
@dougfleming1708 2 aylar önce
Monty had WWI experiences and knew the limitations of what Britain 🇬🇧 could do with a limit to resources. And he did very well . Bit insufferable to many
@nickdanger3802 2 aylar önce
He was threatened with legal action by Field Marshal Auchinleck for suggesting that Auchinleck had intended to retreat from the Alamein position if attacked again, and had to give a radio broadcast (20 November 1958) expressing his gratitude to Auchinleck for having stabilised the front at the First Battle of Alamein. page 127 Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1887-1976: A Selected Bibliography
@TenOfTwenty 3 aylar önce
On the plus side, there was less infighting between the US and British Commanders then the Japanese Army and Japanese Navy Commanders.
@TheMagicalWizardPyro 3 aylar önce
less assassinations lel
@baahcusegamer4530 3 aylar önce
Indeed. Compared to the Imperial infighting, the allied commanders were practically bosom buddies. I’d no idea till this year how phenomenally bad the cooperation between the Japanese Navy and Army was
@robertoroberto9798 3 aylar önce
@@baahcusegamer4530Gotta love having an Army make Aircraft Carriers because the Navy doesn’t want to support you.
@therealrakuster 3 aylar önce
There was less fighting between US and British commanders in the American Revolution than between the IJN and IJA commanders during WW2
@warrenbonathan4879 2 aylar önce
Looking at Monty’s background first of all fighting in the First World War, then at the start of the second was on the side that came close to losing. Also early in the Second World War he had to harbour his resources, very similar to Wellington during the Peninsular war as well as Burgundy campaign. Steel not Flesh hence both favouring set piece battles. Patton we see as being more gung-ho and cowboy like. Both very different but I’d rather serve under Monty, he was the realist and thank god for Ike. Ramsey and Tedder also great leaders that saw things differently from the Americans, Ramsay went from organising Dynamo to Husky and Neptune. You can’t learn that in a book.
@rileyernst9086 2 aylar önce
You will actually find that among frontline troops in the Northern Sector during the Battle of the Bulge the descision to put the British in charge was actually quite favoured. Unlike their US counterparts the first thing the Pommie officers did was tour the frontlines. They found the GIs lacked adequate anti tank support, and they lacked acsess to hot meals. Tankssupport and field kitchens were immediately dispatched. The Germans actually tried an armoured thrust in the Northen sector, which met a concealed firefly, and was thoroughly dissuaded.
@jkranites 2 aylar önce
Well thats cause a lot of the supplies went to Monty for Market Garden...
@rileyernst9086 2 aylar önce
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.
@irishseven100 Aylar önce
The Brits easily defeated The Germans at Bastogne.
@SantaClaus-kk8zr Aylar önce
@@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.
@s0undwavekiller558 Aylar önce
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.
@colinelliott5629 2 aylar önce
For the record, many, perhaps most, British officers thought Monty insufferable, too, and although competent, by no means exceptional as a strategist. Monty would naturally be keen to conserve manpower, a concern Patton could ignore. One might argue for a direct thrust to the Ruhr versus a right outflanking advance, or both, and it was Ike's decision. It's always difficult for an alliance, and even more so with flawed characters, but it worked, didn't it?
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
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.
@colinelliott5629 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@stevendavis1243 Aylar önce
As an american, and having been a student of WW2, I would say that Montgomery was a brilliant but egotistical genius that came at the right time in history... I say this knowing that Patton was in that same boat.
@imnotgoodwithnamesbruh6018 Aylar önce
Patton and Monty deserved each other.
@johnhill7058 19 gün önce
Weak relativistic analysis, Mr. Davis. Patton has Metz, Montgomery has Market Garden, Sicily, and Falais to answer for. Ironlcally, one historian aptly commented that, after El Alamein, Monty would never risk his new found reputation by ever taking a risk again.
@stevendavis1243 19 gün önce
@johnhill7058 Slow your roll dude...Wasn't critiquing their military acumen. I was referring to them both being Prima Donna's,
@stevendavis1243 18 gün önce
@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
@stevenmelnyk1174 3 aylar önce
Interesting presentation. Two comments. When I think about Monty, I cannot help but remember Winston Churchill's statement on Monty - "In defeat, unbeatable; in success, unbearable." Second, according to Cook (a very well-known Canadian historian who specializes on Canadian military history in 20th century), the major Canadian generals also could not stand Monty. The reason - he wanted to replace the Canadian commanding officers with his own British picks. He did not seem to understand that Canada at this time was no longer a British colony but a country and a major contributor to the efforts of the Allies. As for myself, after extensive reading, I am not a fan of Monty.
@csjrogerson2377 3 aylar önce
Then I would suggest that you might not like some of the American Senior Officers, albeit for different reasons. At least Monty was an excellent planner (well, his staff were) and took great care to ensure he was properly prepared. This kept casualties to acceptable limits. Patton on the other hand...
@MrTexasDan 3 aylar önce
@@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.
@wk2k11 2 aylar önce
@@MrTexasDan While Patton was a good tank commander you cannot compare them. Between Monty and Patton... Monty commanded more men, was concerned with bigger issues, and achieved greater successes. Normandy was Monty's success, and the Allied armies attained the areas that Monty had made as objectives for the campaign 3 days sooner than had originally been intended. Patton, by contrast, never commanded anything more than an army and was much more of a tactical commander than a strategist. His greatest success is the rush from Normandy to Metz and the 90 degree wheel in the Bulge... but the former was against a German army that had already been beaten by the slogging match in the Normandy campaign and the latter was against the flank of a German attack that was beginning to run out of fuel and manpower. At Metz, where Patton faced a dug in and determined enemy... Patton was stopped dead by French and German made fortifications, some of which going all the way back to the 1800s.
@xchen3079 2 aylar önce
​@@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.
@wk2k11 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@kevinfright8195 Aylar önce
Monty, having fought in WW1, and witnessed the mistakes. He learnt from them. Yes he may not have been very tactful sometimes, but he and Patron got on.
@gordonmarshall5980 2 aylar önce
Its a good vid and more accurate than most. One correction; Ike didn't promote Monty to Field Marshall. It was Churchill who did it in an attempt to publicly reward him for the battle of Normandy / France but also to placate him for being replaced as Ground Forces Commander. Unfortunately as stated it did the opposite and emboldened him to keep harassing Ike over the question of command as he now technically outranked him.
@nickdanger3802 2 aylar önce
He (Montgomery) had told Eisenhower's deputy chief of operations, the British officer Jock Whitley, that Eisenhower should put him in command of all troops north of the German penetration. Somebody, Montgomery added, meaning either the Combined Chiefs of Staff, of which Brooke was a member, or the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, should give Eisenhower "a direct order ... to do so." page 416 A Time For Trumpets, MacDonald
@EK-gr9gd Aylar önce
MG was a sound operation. The main problem with this kind of operation is, that they had to be planed long in advance (at least on a sandbox level) and the need for allocations and coordination is immense.
@johndawes9337 Aylar önce
the problem was Gavin not following orders and taking the Waal bridge on landing
@hombreenojado 2 aylar önce
Montgomery's home was destroyed during a German air raid. After the war, he requested that the British government rebuild it. They refused.
@johndawes9337 2 aylar önce
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...
@Ikano_Kato 3 aylar önce
"For Monty, this was a rare moment of self-reflection. 'So great were the feelings against me on the part of the American generals that whatever I said was bound to be wrong. I should therefore have said nothing.' " I don't believe this is self-reflection. I think this is Monty thinking that he said nothing wrong, at the press conference, and that it was just the Americans hating him. Not realizing that they were angry at him for minimizing their effort in stopping the German offensive and basically telling the press that is was him, British (and maybe Canadian, not sure what was actually said in the press conference), and US forces that stopped the Germans when it was mostly US infantry doing the fighting.
@Mrhalligan39 3 aylar önce
Indeed. Presenting that quote in that manner as well as accepting Monty’s self-serving explanation of his failure to capture Caen or make Goodwood work makes me wonder if there is a Monty brand Kool-Aid that Intel Report’s been drinking.
@blue-pi2kt 3 aylar önce
This is likely as close to apologies as Monty got and likewise with self reflection. I don't even think the Intel Report has been sippin' on the Monty juice. He was simply at his best overcoming finite circumstances as a group or division commander where his ever-rational operational approach eventually awarded him victory as he flexibly adapted to the circumstances in front of him. It is as a theatre commander leading grand strategy that his greatest weaknesses (unrestrained self-aggrandizement, inability to compromise and absolute commitment to his own correctness) are exposed and it greatly degrades his effectiveness as a military commander.
@scottjoseph9578 2 aylar önce
@@blue-pi2kt Army Commander was where he was best. Monty could not work well with allies. Ultimately, Eisenhower was superb as a Theater Commander.
@0Zolrender0 2 aylar önce
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.
@clarkwilson6340 2 gün önce
My grandfather was a Combat engineer and served with Patton's 3rd army in France but he served Army group for about 3 months actually getting to meet Monty; of the Generals he said Monty was the better Patton was a gambler and like a gambler did not mind throwing you away and he was always going for the long shot win or lose; He said of Monty that he would not fight unless he knew he would win and he always won; Never waste a life nor Make you suffer for glory; for those 3 months he said he ate and had clean under wear and clean socks and new boots; Got back to third Army and went hungry boots rotted off and twice ran out of Ammo and was told by higher use your bayonet; and his primary job was blowing up bunkers at the time; The generals hated Monty but the Troops loved him;
@dogguy8603 Gün önce
Uhh, monty threw away a lot of lives during market garden, his bigest loss
@johndawes9337 20 saatler önce
@@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.
@wk2k11 17 saatler önce
@@dogguy8603 Just as Patton threw away a lot of lives in the Lorraine campaign.
@dogguy8603 17 saatler önce
@@wk2k11 when did I say anything about Patton?
@johndawes9337 6 saatler önce
@@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.
@executivedirector7467 2 aylar önce
The Sicily portion of this video is very seriously flawed. It's revealing that Alexander, the Army Group Commander, who was a layer in between Ike and the two army commanders (Montgomery and Patton) is never even mentioned. That about sums up his absentee leadership in this campaign. Alexander was perhaps Montgomery's opposite - very personable and popular, but not much of a professional, and very hands-off. This is why two Army commanders, who were peers, had to somehow manage the campaign since the Army group commander was useless. The animosity really began when the 8th Army took over a road in use by II Corps, and forced US units to turn around, go back the way they had come, and then restart their advance along a different route. Having taken over the road, 8th Army then failed to exploit it. I would say Bradley resented this more than Patton, probably because he better understood the cost. Montgomery was a very talented commander, there's no doubt about that. I think too many people simply believe what they hear in movies so they think Montgomery was incompetent and Patton was some godlike figure. Anyone serious about the subject knows the truth was very different. Both were great professionals and both were difficult personalities.
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
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_
@NVRAMboi 2 aylar önce
If such a comparison could be measured, I doubt American animosity for Monty would approach levels reserved for MacArthur. I believe there is a foundational respect for both men and their efforts/accomplishments. There's just no affection beyond whatever was generated among their own respective troops who served under them. That works well since both men allegedly had a lofty opinion of themselves.
@rogerkidd2121 2 aylar önce
A polarising personality with huge self-confidence and experience. Interesting not mention of his wife Betty who died in 1937. Also no mention of his part in saving the BEF in 1940.
@kayveen5853 2 aylar önce
Nor his less than gallant, if not illegal, campaign in Ireland in the 1920's
@rogerkidd2121 2 aylar önce
@@kayveen5853 Illegal? In whose terms? You could apply the same argument to Algiers, Malaya, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....etc.
@rogerkidd2121 2 aylar önce
@@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...
@darrensmith6999 2 aylar önce
I feel quite sorry for poor Eisenhower !
@matthewallenramsay9480 3 aylar önce
In his personal diary, Chief of the Imperial Staff, General Sir Alan Brooke, wrote of Montgomery, “ he is liable to commit untold errors in lack of tact" and "I had to haul him over the coals for his usual lack of tact and egotistical outlook which prevented him from appreciating other people's feelings. “
@banzi403 3 aylar önce
people were dying and yankee top brass were worried about their feelings of the generals
@johnfleet235 3 aylar önce
Brooke should have enforced military discipline on Monty, but he failed to do so.
@nvelsen1975 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@retiredbore378 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@artturretje423 2 aylar önce
when I was at Staff College, we got the British attack plan of the Second Battle of El Alamein and were tasked to analyse it, which we did: it was a really bad plan but fortunately due to Ultra intelligence the battle was won (as Kursk was). This victory made his name (deserved or not) and after that ao Caen and Arnhem put his reputation in jeopardy....
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
Americans blamed him for Market Garden's failure after they had sabotaged it themselves and he had nothing to do with its planning.
@wk2k11 2 aylar önce
How is it a bad plan? It made maximum use of Artillery and Air power and exploited the Germans ability to counter attack.
@surprisedchar2458 Aylar önce
British intel was second to none through the entire war, and unduly boosted a lot of egos.
@davidjacksmith7171 11 saatler önce
It's amazing how egotistic Patton was. Peed off because HE DIDN'T GET LUNCH -- but he did get a lousy cheap lighter. Seems Monty cared more about the welfare of his men than GP.
@tonybuckley950 2 aylar önce
Being a retired cynic I suspect Patton was shrewd enough to use rivalry with Monty as something to motivate his troops to outdo the rival team.
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
Why are you mentioning a lowly slow US general?
@bigwoody4704 2 aylar önce
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
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
@@bigwoody4704 Rambo, a quiz. Name the US general who *failed* to get over the Westwall in Lorraine? 20 points for the correct answer.
@TheBenj30 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@kevwhufc8640 2 aylar önce
I didn't know they did hate him . Yes he had a massive ego , and could be very blunt , but so where other generals, especially Patton. Regular soldiers under Montgomery's command all seemed to love the guy. Ive read a couple of books about Patton and many regular US soldiers under his command complained about his treatment of them, punishing, bullying, humiliating ,for the slightest thing , many thought he was genuinely crazy , he believed he had been a great general in his past lives , It doesn't appear his was loved by the men who new him best . I guess Eisenhower was the best man for the top job, when he spoke everyone listened. He had a way of getting what he wanted without upsetting anyone.
@phillipdavies6548 2 aylar önce
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.
@kevwhufc8640 2 aylar önce
@@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 :) 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿
@thomaseland3136 2 aylar önce
My dad fought in North Africa and loved Monty 😊
@twostep1953 2 aylar önce
It wasn't just the Americans, it was everyone who had to deal with him personally. The best description I've heard of him came from a British officer. To put it in American terms, if he was on a football team and didn't get to be the quarterback and call the plays, he would mess up on purpose.
@91Redmist 2 aylar önce
Wow. That's saying a lot.
@aceclash 2 aylar önce
quite simple. British and French rest on their laurels cause they only needed to occupy weak countries while Germany and Japan developed their armies and navy with intent on attacking other empires. both used world war 1 tactics still against German blitzkrieg.
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
@twostep1953 'The best description I've heard of him came from a British officer.' Which officer would that be?..
@linnharamis1496 2 aylar önce
I’ve been studying WW2 history as a hobby for 65 years. Thank you for covering this interesting issue in a concise review. Hitler Repeatedly predicted the collapse of the Allied collation - he was wrong. Certainly, Eisenhower deserves a good chunk of credit for keeping all the prima donna generals on his staff headed in the right direction: towards the Rhine and ending the Purported thousand year Reich. Note: with all Montgomery’s faults he was the right man at a certain time and place: El Alamein, November 1942.
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
Montgomery was the right man in North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, the Scheldt, the Northern half of the Bulge, and the Rhine.
@linnharamis1496 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@gregoryschmitz2131 23 gün önce
Montgomery almost lost the 2nd Battle of El Alemein despite huge advantage in troops, armor and air power. Equally he had Enigma to tell him what the Germans were doing and strength. The only time he moved was if the US Army was going to get ahead. Then he hosed it up. His failure to seize the far side of Antwerp lead to months delay in that port being opened. Market Garden was another attempt to get his glory (on a single road). He failed to use Air-power there as well. He was a planning Genius and a field failure who succeeded only because of massive over match. In short he was a piss ant. Yes Patton was a jerk but he was a combat jerk and pushed hard at all times. Bradly was a jerk with a Montgomery image (the peon general). Enigma and the vast US War production machine was the only reason Montgomery had any success.
@zippy5131 2 aylar önce
It's amazing how a lot of non military personel and military personel, can turn against someone who is married to there work and wants to win, but not slaughter all there men. I'm ex RAF and I've worked with some people very similar, get the job done but not at a cost to personell, and to hell with those who say different. And yes sceptics can be dificult to work with. One thing you forgot about is Monty's incredible involvment with the BEF.
@patrickelliott-brennan8960 2 aylar önce
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.
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
@@patrickelliott-brennan8960 Being cautious is a US slur. Monty planned properly. Very professional.
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
Thank you for your service, and thank heavens we still have people in the military who know what they're doing.
@bigwoody4704 2 aylar önce
@@johnburns4017 Sure he was johnny have your handler read the Full Monty to you,maybe not you may think it's a love story
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@philbirch3452 2 aylar önce
Perhaps a film on the British thoughts on US general Mark Clark would be interesting.
@johndawes9337 2 aylar önce
it would be a 1 minute movie
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
@@johndawes9337 Love it!
@TheRealRedAce 2 aylar önce
How Clarke escaped being disciplined is a mystery to me.
@JamesWilliams-ii7yv 2 aylar önce
Clark was a disaster
@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab 2 aylar önce
If we are honest, Monty and Patton were both really difficult egotistical glory-grabbers & nightmares to control, but as Churchill famously said: "Nice men do NOT win wars..."
@origamiscienceguy6658 2 aylar önce
And then there was MacArthur...
@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab 2 aylar önce
@@origamiscienceguy6658 Oh yes, another difficult, brutal character, - I forgot him!
@wk2k11 2 aylar önce
And then there was Markus Aurelius Clarkus. 😂
@MrJinglejanglejingle 2 aylar önce
@@origamiscienceguy6658 I mean... At least he was more effective than any of the others, despite him being such a bastard.
@deochadorais 2 aylar önce
Only for Montgomery we wouldn't have Spike's great memoir, 'Monty: His Part in My Victory'.
@georgedoolittle9015 2 aylar önce
Part of being a Field Marshal is being difficult and *"Monty"* fit that to a tee (personification of the idea.) Still i dont know any Americans to the extent to which they knew who FM Montgomery was who actually "dislike" him as he had one quintessential USA American trait that USA Americans loved namely being a *WINNER.* There were titanic debates about "how to shorten the War" but these far predated BLM's arrival at the Battle of El Alamein
@johnhill7058 19 gün önce
Really? More of a "one and done" ( El alamein). Not much of a winner at Scily, Falaise, or Market Garden.
@Wanderer628 2 aylar önce
I think the problem with how Montgomery is viewed is that his difficult personality has been extended to his military ability which no historian seriously doubts. However said difficult personality combined with post war American military officer memoirs which foisted a lot of their own mistakes on to British officers has meant that people falsely claim he was a bad general.
@krashd 2 aylar önce
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.
@donchoq 2 aylar önce
The Montgomery Martini has a 15 to 1 ratio of Gin to Vermouth. This is to honor that Montgomery would wait until he had a 15 to 1 troop advantage before attacking.
@furiousscotsman2916 2 aylar önce
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 😂
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
@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?..
@furiousscotsman2916 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@FuzzyWuzzy75 Aylar önce
I am an American but had Canadian family who were veterans of WWII, who served under Montgomery. I can tell you, of the Canadians I knew, who served under Montgomery, they were not fans of Montgomery at all. They believed that Montgomery saw the Canadians as nothing more than cannon fodder. If things went well, the Brits got all the credit, and if things went poorly, the Canadians got all the blame, so they thought.
@bigwoody4704 Aylar önce
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
@Paratus7 Aylar önce
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.
@bigwoody4704 Aylar önce
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
@Paratus7 Aylar önce
@@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.
@phildicks4721 2 aylar önce
I think Monty's biggest problem was his lack of tact, and being totally oblivious to that lack. His ego was no worse than other genrals like Clark, MacArthur, and Patton. Hell, both Patton and Monty gave Gen Bradley cussing fits, and Bradley was probally the most even tempered next to Ike.
@sumivescent 2 aylar önce
Bradley was actually quite a jingoistic primadonna in the mold of Patton, throwing fits since Tunisia. After Ardennes even his relationship with Eisenhower soured.
@RRaquello 2 aylar önce
@@sumivescent Bradley had a great press agent in Ernie Pyle, who loved him and whose syndicated newspaper column pretty much set Bradley's image in the minds of the American people. That's how he came to be known as the "GI's general".
@giantgeoff 2 aylar önce
You do realize that prewar the three of them were very close friends. There has a book written about it. If my age addled brain doesn't fail me The relatively independently wealthy Patton was assigned with Eisenhower to some very substandard Married Officers Quarters he financed their mutual renovation which was beyond Ike's meager resources.
@sirosis7858 2 aylar önce
Monty was trash, and worse than every single general you mentioned.
@bryanmcdermott4204 2 aylar önce
Patton was crazy, but successful so long as others tended to nuts and bolts. Monty was brilliant at the nuts and bolts, but apparently came across as a bit aloof.
@jgranger3532 2 aylar önce
Simpson was American and got along with Monty. After the Ardennes offense, Ike put Simpson's army under Monty's command. Simpson was unusually professional.
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
Simpson never attempted to counter his superior, Monty. Then all went well.
@oxcart4172 2 aylar önce
Years ago, i saw a documentary about him. Apparently, they found people who admired him, but nobody who actually liked him!
@optiondezzo1513 2 aylar önce
think most admired his ability to fail upwards.
@steventanner1482 2 aylar önce
It is very easy to make cheap shots at Montgomery and we are cursed with the constant rewriting of history thanks to Hollywood etc. What is often overlooked in these types of presentations is that the performance of American ground forces in Europe was often horrible. The Battle of Kasserine Pass was a disaster, their performance in Italy was at best marginal and D-Day, well lets just say, it could have been a lot better. US airborne forces were scattered to the four winds, Omaha beach was a massive failure of planning, intelligence appreciation and execution. The Utah beach assault got lucky thanks to landing in the wrong place. Monty had rightly understood that placing US troops in the line of the elite German armoured forces that would counter attack the D-Day assault would end in disaster. British and Canadian troops had the experience and know how to do the job. Operation Cobra began with a huge bombing raid where USAAF bombers dropped thousands of tonnes of explosives on their own troops, however, eventually the US forces managed to push through the weak German front line. Any way, I could go on and on. The best British General of WW2 was William Slim, and I would argue, he should be considered in the top 10-20 generals of all time.
@ElGrandoCaymano 2 aylar önce
This is a very extensive and well-produced documentary perfectly addressing the title, but I think the creator should add a conclusion or a wrap-up.
@dickdastardly5534 2 aylar önce
Its good to have a balanced over view of Monty I have read too many times my American friends slagging off Monty which I think is a bit unfair, and as you have alluded too the situation came from competing egos amongst all the allied brass.
@Zelein 2 aylar önce
Looking at this from a European perspective, I grow ever more appreciative of having a man such as Dwight Eisenhower in command. I also agree with the sentiment that Montgomery may actually have been on the spectrum. It would explain his lack of tact and certain parts of his personality.
@knightblade0188 2 aylar önce
Without Eisenhower we’d have probably lost the war in the west.
@user-gl5dq2dg1j 2 aylar önce
@@knightblade0188 Thankfully Marshal was a good judge of character and ability and FDR backed him. It was the US part of the Supreme allied command that finally insisted on invading France in 44 instead of letting Churchill talk them into invading Greece.
@knightblade0188 2 aylar önce
@@user-gl5dq2dg1j sadly many British hate Eisenhower and still try to discredit him.
@krashd 2 aylar önce
@@user-gl5dq2dg1j The US part of the SAC also insisted on invading France in 1941 with Ike and Monty having to convince them that it would be suicide.
@krashd 2 aylar önce
@@knightblade0188 I've never met a single Brit with anything bad to say about Ike.
@donaldgoodinson7550 2 aylar önce
My father served under this man in North Africa.Far from being beloved by his men they all thought him a prat.
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
My father served under Montgomery in North West Europe. He had no opinion of him, he never met him.
@johndawes9337 2 aylar önce
@@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..
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@mdbizzarri 2 aylar önce
My uncle was Bradley's attaché' in his final years in the Pentagon and into his retirement. He was a 5 star, and his ego matched it. I think Americans today can acknowledge the genius of those generals along with MacArthur , though the egos got in the way of being even better. It seems like the modern generals have taken a much more quiet tone and don't push for the limelight. If you look at Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf, he did his job, retired, and wrote his memoirs. He was a prima donna, like all senior staff, but who wouldn't be with all of that power, benefits, and "yes men" hanging on your every word?
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
He should have been fired at the Bulge for gross incompetence.
@tillyanddaisy378 2 aylar önce
Any 20-minute film tends to simplify and risks missing key aspects. The very title of this film is meant to provoke emotion and strong feelings towards Monty, I sense a lot of “Haters” putting their pennies worth in… and Monty had plenty of haters when he was alive too… I recommend reading Nigel Hamilton’s biography of Monty to demonstrate how he became the master of the planned, deliberate battle. For example, when he took command of operation Overlord, he wasn’t the only one who could see that the existing plans were doomed to failure, but he was the only one that had the balls to rip up existing plans, and adopt a better plan. This very act by Monty was bound to create friction and create more enemies. He wasn’t very diplomatic, but that wasn’t his role, he was wartime general! The existing Overlord plan presented a very narrow front at Normandy, the Invasion being contained on just one beachhead. This would have lead to catastrophic problems for the Allies, for example, congestion on the beaches of US, Brit and Canadian forces and subsequent issues with reinforcements. Monty’s concept included Canadian/British key role initially - to draw German armour reserve onto them, acting as a shield for the US 1st Army to break out. It was not their primary objective to seize Caen or advance to Paris. Unfortunately, this was used by Monty’s Haters as grounds to criticise his plans and Brits progress, even Eisenhower was impatient for success, taking the absurd decision to initiate a 3rd front - operation Anvil, thereby reducing resources available for Normandy. Everyone makes mistakes. Also - the disappointment with the speed of operations can be partly attributed to very poor weather after D-day which severely hampered Air support for ground forces and Navy ops resupplies.
@MrJinglejanglejingle 2 aylar önce
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.
@tillyanddaisy378 2 aylar önce
Says the armchair general. How many men’s lives have you been responsible for?
@doid3r4s 2 aylar önce
One thing I learnt from this video is how agreeable Eisenhower was, considering how many times he agreed with what someone said.
@davefranklin4136 2 aylar önce
While I agree Eisenhower had a most difficult job as the Supreme Commander, dealing with all of the politics and personalities, I have long thought, probably most recently reinforced after reading Rick Atkinson's The Guns at Last Light, that one of Eisenhower's major failings was not at a minimum a more clear objective, if not outright ordering, Monty to both capture Antwerp, but also clear the Scheldt Estuary - i.e. unambiguous direction to capture and secure the port of Antwerp and its approaches, thus making it usable as an Allied supply port. Of course, one cannot escape that Monty should not have had to be told that in the first place...
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
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.
@nickdanger3802 2 aylar önce
@@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?
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@wk2k11 2 aylar önce
@@nickdanger3802 Then why didn't Eisenhower cancel the useless assault on Brest and prioritise clearing the Schedlt?
@11nytram11 2 aylar önce
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.
@kyleolson8977 3 aylar önce
After reading Rick Atkinson's work, it seems better to ask why Monty hated the Americans so much.
@Ryan-fh8qu 3 aylar önce
For goodness sakes. It doesn't matter who hated who. We were allies fighting an enemy who every day was killing more and more men, women, and children in those gas chambers. They were stopped and that's what matters.
@Shotty262 3 aylar önce
@@Ryan-fh8quit’s a discussion worth having. Nobody is downplaying the United struggle against fascism.
@williamchamberlain2263 3 aylar önce
Turning up 2.5 years late probably didn't help
@jbombs7511 3 aylar önce
@@williamchamberlain2263 ha y’all couldn’t hold out for that long with out American support
@sirierieott5882 2 aylar önce
He wasn’t a bad general in war, but a bad man to others he had to work with who achieved wartime leadership success. Pride before a fall comes to mind. His memoirs are an interesting read though…
@craiga2002 2 aylar önce
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...
@aljames8675 2 aylar önce
Monty certainly had his faults - but whilst I couldn't say whether his ego and arrogance were any better or worse than his than his US counterparts, he was said to highly value the lives of those fighting under him. Market Garden aside he wasn't accused of risking them to achieve personal success. Not sure if the same was true of Patton. But he even gets a needless derogatory line in Saving Private Ryan, so Americans certainly take issue with him. Phaps in part simply by virtue of being a prominent foreign Commander of reasonable success.
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
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.
@Tyler-jq7rv 2 aylar önce
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”
@davemac1197 2 aylar önce
@@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)
@28pbtkh23 2 aylar önce
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.
@wk2k11 2 aylar önce
@@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
@joezingher4770 13 gün önce
There was a resentment in the US military during WW Two because of the experience of WW One. US troops were placed under the command of British / French commanders. They used the US troops in a manner that indicated they were cannon fodder meant to relieve the British and French soldiers from fighting in the war.
@johndawes9337 13 gün önce
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.
@edopronk1303 Aylar önce
Great video. I was wondering why, in other videos comments sections, people sometimes loathe Monty. The last part was a bit rushed; Monty had still a big Rhine crossing, with an airdrop bigger than Market Garden, before he was sidelined; Varsity.
@johndawes9337 Aylar önce
side-lined? as for MG not his::Ike demanded it Brereton and Williams planned it Gavin messed it up
@bigwoody4704 Aylar önce
Get your head wound looked at. Then go visit Monty's statue in Arnhem - oh that's right there isn't one
@johndawes9337 Aylar önce
@@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.
@wk2k11 Aylar önce
@@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.
@charming4648 2 aylar önce
I've never heard this story in such detail. Thank you
@jerrymclellan4711 2 aylar önce
I believe that "Here Montgomery displayed the characteristics that made him.... an insufferable person to work with," pretty much sums it up.
@nickjung7394 2 aylar önce
Churchill said of Monty "wonderful to serve under.....impossible to command" or something like that!
@spm36 2 aylar önce
Today monty would be on the autistic scale..hence his faux pars
@bobtudbury8505 2 aylar önce
but knew his job
@lyndoncmp5751 2 aylar önce
Most people under his command greatly liked and appreciated him. He really only rubbed up those on his level or above him.
@wout4yt 2 aylar önce
@@lyndoncmp5751 Best sort of commander. imho
@AndyBonesSynthPro 2 aylar önce
Bet I'm not the only American who saw the title & balked "Nonsense! We totally love Monty Python, and have been referencing & quoting them for eons!"
@blue387 2 aylar önce
What was Monty's relationship with other members of the coalition like the French or Soviets?
@BugattiONE666 2 aylar önce
Because he was good, and to them that was something only they were supposed to do
@johnharris6655 2 aylar önce
There is a 2004 movie called "IKE: Countdown to D-Day "Where Tom Sellick plays Eisenhower, In once scene his Chief of Staff wants Ike to get more publicity and Ike Replies " I cannot go around competing for ink with some of the biggest swelled heads in history." He had to deal with Montgomery, Patton, Churchill and the worse was DeGaulle. Ike is telling him about the plans to liberate his country and all the man does is complain. I have only seen one movie where Monty is portrayed in a positive way and that was The Longest Day.
@sumivescent Aylar önce
Holly. Wood is a historian of such great renown and his sourcing is impeccable.
@Raycheetah 2 aylar önce
Sounds like Monty was a technically capable war-fighter with BAD people skills. Ike, who showed great tolerance and patience with Monty should have told him to "Do the job and keep your mouth shut." ='[.]'=
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
Nah! Monty did not tolerate amateurs.
@mikearnold9864 3 aylar önce
I’m surprised that you didn’t include the footage of Monty making US soldiers run towards him happily yelling and celebrating him. Afterwards, they realized that they were used and felt humiliated. That has to part of why that hated Monty 😮
@voiceofraisin3778 3 aylar önce
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.
@koushinproductions 3 aylar önce
Got i link to that footage good sir? I'm interested in seeing it, but failed to get a good search result.
@bigwoody4704 3 aylar önce
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.
@joshuaevans4301 2 aylar önce
I don't hate Monty! He's great - his performance with the British 8th army in Africa was absolutely extraordinary, especially given how it was commanded and performed beforehand
@s0undwavekiller558 Aylar önce
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."
@bluestarcesium 2 aylar önce
In Africa Monty was surrounded by the Germans and he abandoned his equipment and retreated during the night to Egypt where war material headed to help the Chinese army fight the Japanese were diverted to re-equip Monty’s forces. Chiang never forgave us for doing this, yet it did save the English army in Africa. The difficulty that Eisenhower faced with Monty, is Monty’s lack of understanding of strategy and warfare. On strategy Monty wanted all the supplies and armor to make a thrust for Berlin. Eisenhower reminded Monty that Russia was to occupy Berlin and eastern Germany and it would be a waste of many allied lives uselessly. Plus, there would be a chance of his forces being cut off. Some were afraid that the Germans were hoping that Monty would do something like this where the Germans could force a defeat on the Allies. Everyone was afraid that Monty would run into a situation similar to what happened at Caan where Monty was wanting more troops and more support before he would attack, and this gave the Germans time to reinforce their forces and dig into better defensive positions. Eisenhower strategy was to force the Germans to spread out their forces to protect the entire western front, and stop them from massing their forces. In the battle of the Bulge, the weather was the major factor in aiding the Germans advance. Allied forces were reduced in that area, because of lack of roads in this area, and the thick forests would make it difficult to resupply forces there. The Germans were expecting to use captured supplies of fuel and other materials to supply their forces. The Allies did not have any armor units in this area, and it took Patton a couple of days to reach the battlefield because of the weather. Once the sky cleared, it was extremely difficult for the Germans to continue the offensive because of Allied air superiority and both Monty’s attacks in the north of the bulge and Patton’s attack from the south. People wanted to like Monty, but he always made demands from Eisenhower, that were beyond Monty’s ability to accomplish. Market Gardens was a prime example of Monty’s inability to accomplish his objectives. The German’s counter attack caught Monty unprepared to move fast enough to complete the offensive. It was a test situation, to see if Monty could accomplish his timetable. Monty failed. Monty had a habit of wanting to accomplish his objectives, but the Germans knew that they could launch a counter offensive and catch Monty’s over ambitious plan.
@johnburns4017 2 aylar önce
I am trying see something right in what you wrote.
@samgraham9235 2 aylar önce
I don't think that there has been an 'English army' since the 17th Century; but perhaps someone more knowledgeable can educate me.
@benjaminrush4443 2 aylar önce
It simply amazing that the USA & British Empire could maintain their continued cooperation and succeed in the eventual defeat of NAZI Germany. Combine this with cooperating & supporting the Russians & Stalin (Lend Lease). We were quite fortunate. Add the Pacific Campaign against Japan. With all the Egos involved - the Anglos Won. It couldn't have been done without lots of perseverance & Luck. Thank God. Thanks for the Video. A Yank in New England.
@davidarchibald50 18 gün önce
Strangely these stories always focus on Monty as being some kind of personality disaster. Unfortunately, Bradley and Paton were even worse characters, who cared nothing for their own soldier's blood. But America had the money, men, and materials, and that is everything in the end.
@nickdanger3802 15 gün önce
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
@nickdanger3802 2 aylar önce
"To start with, Antwerp was not considered to be overly important as Montgomery wanted to push to the Ruhr as soon as was possible. His belief that an attack on Arnhem would bring a swift end to the war did not succeed - and it was only after the failure of Operation Market Garden that Montgomery realised the importance of Antwerp in solving the increasing supply difficulties that the Allies had as their supply lines became more and more extended as they approached Germany." "As early as September 8th, 1944, Winston Churchill had written to his chiefs-of-staff about the importance of the Walcheren area and the port of Antwerp." History Learning Site UK Antwerp and World War Two
@rjkbytes1 2 aylar önce
An American officer was a guest a British Army mess, offered a pre-dinner drink, he requested a martini. The barman asked what kind and the American looked confused. The barman explained: Wet, 4 parts gin to one part vermouth, Dry, 8 to 1, very dry, 12 to 1 and a Montgomery, 15 to 1 and demanding more gin.
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
Not really...
@lyndoncmp5751 2 aylar önce
Sorry, don't get it.
@jonesukanaivalu9221 2 aylar önce
😂 good one
@eddieredmann3 2 aylar önce
From what I have read, heard, and understood from contemporary sources about Montgomery's tactical maneuvering, it sounded like he had a tendency to hoover up resources that would very well have been better used elsewhere. For example, in North Africa, what really did Rommel in wasn't anything Montgomery did but what the Royal Navy did in the Mediterranean: form an effective blockade of German supplies and reinforcements while also providing a steady supply for Monty. And it seemed to a lot of American generals that Monty moved way too slowly and made way too little progress with what he had relative to what the Americans could've done with said resources.
@johndawes9337 2 aylar önce
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
@bigwoody4704 2 aylar önce
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
@stevenbass732 2 aylar önce
In junior high school, I read an autobiography by Montgomery. It was so full of "I" strain and insufferable ego that I couldn't finish it. From what I've read, the only reason he was given his rank was because the British general Staff got tired of his constant complaining. He absolutely hated that Eisenhower was given command of the allied forces. Eisenhower once told him "easy Monty, I'm your boss". Montgomery never got over being completely under General Patton's shadow.
@johndawes9337 2 aylar önce
i say you are telling porky pies about reading a book..you saw the movie patton and think it is a documentary..
@stevenbass732 2 aylar önce
@@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. 👍
@johndawes9337 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@stevenbass732 2 aylar önce
@@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.
@nothingtoseaheardammit 2 aylar önce
As a grandchild of a WW2 combat veteran who fought at Montecassino and Anzio - I can tell you why they hated Monty. From his own lips: "The guy thought his sh*t didn't stink and took his dandy time coming up Italy while we were dying." My grandfather is also a huge fan of General Clarke. Said his delay in moving off the beach in Anzio saved them from slaughter. He's 100 years old now and still kicking.
@thevillaaston7811 2 aylar önce
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.
@sumivescent 2 aylar önce
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.
@sumivescent 2 aylar önce
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".
Why Germany Lost the Battle for North Africa (WW2 Documentary)
Real End Twist🥰#shorts #reels #youtubeshorts #trending #viral
Rishan sriansh & Sree nayana
görünümler 24 Mn
강력한 치아 미백제
승비니 Seungbini
görünümler 7 Mn
Battle of Iwo Jima - Complete Animated Documentary
The Operations Room
görünümler 916 B
Why Did The Yom Kippur War Happen?
The Intel Report
görünümler 342 B
When Israel Stole Its Own Missile Boats from France
The Intel Report
görünümler 1 Mn
Montgomery - Mastermind of El Alamein & Market Garden Documentary
Were the Atomic Bombings Necessary?
The Intel Report
görünümler 345 B
Real End Twist🥰#shorts #reels #youtubeshorts #trending #viral
Rishan sriansh & Sree nayana
görünümler 24 Mn