Britain's Greatest General - National Army Museum (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

I already made my point. For those who really want to see the truth behind Monty, they need only read my historical fiction novel (if I ever get around to trying to get it published). He was an egotist who may have been concerned for the men under his command, but cared nothing about sacrificing the lives of other British of American troops if it meant advancement of his career.

But Louis, would younot concede the above statement does suggest you have a bias against him?

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

Ok Brad, I'll do my bit! . One thing you can say about Monty, HE never through away mens lives trying to rescue family members!!:wink2:^&grin

There, that should do it!

Rob

Rob,

That little debacle, where that egomaniacal disgrace got an entire combat command wiped out was far from Patton's most egregious conduct as a commander. Are you aware that he was the author of a massacre of POW's as big as the Nazi's attrocity at Malmede? Or that he killed dozens of American WWI veterans as well as members of their families, including two infants while disregarding direct orders from his commander and chief, then president Herbert Hoover, to withdraw? Allow me to bring you up to speed on a few little known and carefully hushed up episodes from his career. First the POW massacre:

There were several massacres of prisoners of war committed by the American 45th (Thunderbird) Division during the invasion of Sicily:

At Comise airfield, men of the 45th machine-gunned a truck load of German prisoners as they climbed down on to the tarmac, prior to being air-lifted out.
Later the same day, 60 Italian prisoners were cut down the same way. On July 14th, near Gela, Sergeant Barry West gunned down thirty-six prisoners he was assigned to guard. At Buttera airfield, Captain Jerry Compton, lined up his 43 prisoners against a wall and executed them.

General Bradley himself ordered Sergeant West and Captain Compton to face a general court-martial for premeditated murder. West and Compton’s main defense was that they were obeying orders issued by Patton in a speech he made to his soldiers on 27th June. More than 2 dozen soldiers were willing to give evidence that Patton had told then to take no prisoners. One officer made a sworn statement that Patton had not only ordered the men not to take prisoners, he had explained why they shouldn’t: ‘The more prisoners we took, the more we'd have to feed, so don’t fool with taking prisoners.’

Bradley ordered the investigation into the murder of the Axis soldiers, to be dropped, presumably to protect Patton from the charge of war crimes.

 

[UK_BOD]

Oh well, I thought about 35 posts would suffice to close this one.

In my opinion it is very hard to find the best even from this list. Are we assuming just from the title "Britain's Greatest General" that we are at the pinnicle of command, the post of CinC. In that case I would say it was Brooke (not mentioned). If that is not the case and can be at any level, then there are a number of runners, my choices would be...

Monty - From his superb handling of his division in Dunkirk, against a superior force and uncertain allies to a leader of an Army Group at NW Europe he inspired his men to fight an exceptional enemy and win (My grandfather praised him throughout his life).

Wellington - No need for me to mention this Gents war record, he took on the best and won.

Haig - Most people believe him a butcher and a murderer, but please take into account the weapons available. War was on the side of the defence then. Take Grant for example, on most polls I have seen him rate quite highly, but his casualty figures were horrendous (Civil war the advantage was always with the defence-just like WWI).

Okay so this thread may run on for a few more, but guys remember this is my opinion.^&cool I am no Grant hater - he also had his moments.%^V

Andy

 

[Louis Badolato]

But Louis, would younot concede the above statement does suggest you have a bias against him?

Rob

No Rob, a bias, by definition, suggests prejudment without having access to the facts. My opinion of Montgomery is based on months of research and documented facts.

Now, back to Patton.

Have you ever heard of the ‘Bonus Army’? In 1924, a grateful Congress had voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until the ‘40’s. In the darkest days of the depression, some of the Veterans, desperate to feed and house their families, begged Congress to pay the bonus early.
In May of that year, some 15,000 veterans, many accompanied by their wives and children, most unemployed and destitute, descended on Washington, D.C. seeking immediate payment of their bonus. Discipline in the camp was good, despite the fears of residents of the district generated by unfounded ‘Red Scare’ rumors. Streets were laid out, latrines dug, and formations held daily. Newcomers were required to register and prove they were bona fide veterans who had been honorably discharged.

On July 28th, 1932, President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans. MacArthur was in command, and Patton was in charge of the Cavalry. Ike was there, as the liaison with Washington police. Patton was a major then, and saw a chance to make points with MacArthur, then the chief of staff, as well as President Hoover.

By 16:45 hours the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Avenue below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees lined the streets to watch. The veterans, believing the military was there to support and honor them, cheered. Without warning, Patton ordered the cavalry to charge. They trampled them with horses, tear gassed the veterans and their families, then the infantry attacked them with fixed bayonets. The casualties included two infants killed. They were less than a year old.

Seeing what had happened, Hoover ordered the Army to withdraw. MacArthur and Patton disregarded the president’s order, and attacked the main camp. By morning the shanty town had burned to the ground. The local hospitals were overwhelmed treating the burned and battered victims, all veterans and their families.

Ike was appalled, and afterwards he publically stated it ‘was pitiful’ and that the veterans were ‘badly abused.’

So, in my opinion, Patton ranks out even lower than Monty in this race to the bottom.

 

[Northgate Woods]

Gentlemen,
I had decided to take a holiday from posting on the Forum but this "debate" has just returned me to the fray. My vote would be for either Bill Slim or Wellington. Seasoned campaigner was Bill Slim who cared for their troops.

Monty: Even I, as a lowly Tank Troop Leader could have beaten Rommel at Alamein, who had no supplies and exhausted troops. Monty admitted that he would not take on Rommel until he had five to one superiority in tanks, troops and artillery. Too easy. You need to ask some of the old 9th Aussie Div. in our local Returned Servicemans League club what they thought of Monty's leadership at Alamein.

Haig: Very well loved man here "Downunder". Has still got a lot to answer for. He was not the one who got it together in the closing months of the War but the Corp Commanders under his command. Monash (Aussie) Currie (Canadian) and Pershing (US). They together carried Haig to a great victory.

Just an Aussie opinion. I'm with you Louis. No offence meant to the Mother Country for incompetent Generals.
Cheers Howard

 

[Rob]

I like your answer to the Monty part Louis!^&grin

I had heard something many moons ago but I do not know the detail, thanks very much for taking the time to post that Louis, fascinating stuff, one can imagine the outrage in all quarters of the treatment of the vets. I did not know Patton was so heavily involved , a black Mark against him to be sure.

As for this thread being shut down I really doubt it. We here are just debating who we rank as general's etc, but prettymuch on the same side, other subjects divide folk much more and I don't see it happening here:smile2:

Thanks again Louis

Rob

 

[Rob]

Hey Howard,

But in the same breath mate if you asked some vets of the 8th Army in this country they would tell you they loved the guy. Also he totally out thought Rommel during the campaign, he also gave the 8th Army it's fighting spirit back, and if you havn't got that it doesn't matter what supplies you've got, the troops won't want to go forward.

Rob

Gentlemen,
I had decided to take a holiday from posting on the Forum but this "debate" has just returned me to the fray. My vote would be for either Bill Slim or Wellington. Seasoned campaigner was Bill Slim who cared for their troops.

Monty: Even I, as a lowly Tank Troop Leader could have beaten Rommel at Alamein, who had no supplies and exhausted troops. Monty admitted that he would not take on Rommel until he had five to one superiority in tanks, troops and artillery. Too easy. You need to ask some of the old 9th Aussie Div. in our local Returned Servicemans League club what they thought of Monty's leadership at Alamein.

Haig: Very well loved man here "Downunder". Has still got a lot to answer for. He was not the one who got it together in the closing months of the War but the Corp Commanders under his command. Monash (Aussie) Currie (Canadian) and Pershing (US). They together carried Haig to a great victory.

Just an Aussie opinion. I'm with you Louis. No offence meant to the Mother Country for incompetent Generals.
Cheers Howard

 

[Louis Badolato]

As I said about Haig in his debate, if you are going to have an adult debate about a person you have to look at him in the round and try not to let emotion get in the way. Lots of people want to focus on Arnhem or his performance in Normandy. But these same people totally ignore that he masterminded the defeat of the Afrika Korp, out thought and out fought Rommel , but they just don't want to discuss it.

The fact that Haig ****** up Royal on the Somme and at Passchendaele does not take anything away from what he did in the last hundred days, in the same way Arnhem has nothing to do with how well Monty performed at Alamein.

Rob

But Rob,

You are making my point for me. You do not judge a person only on his good actions and decisions, you look at his overall body of work. You credit Monty for defeating the Afrika Corps. I disagree, as he was handed the victory on a silver platter, but I won't go there right now. He and Patton both screwed up in Sicily, allowing their personal rivalry to degenerate into an all out race for Messina. During their race for the credit of occupying Messina, both Patton and Monty bypassed substantial Axis forces, allowing the Axis to evacuate over 100,000 men, some 10,000 vehicles, including fifty tanks, over 160 guns, more than 1,800 tons of ammunition and fuel, and nearly 17,000 tons of equipment from Sicily by August 17th, while they both engaged in a pissing match over Messina to grab headlines. The German forces which escaped, including the Hermann Göring Division, caused literally tens of thousands of Allied Casualties during the Italian Campaign.

Then there was his little snit with Alexander that caused 9,000 more casualties I described in a previous post.

You already mentioned Normandy (his waste of nearly 200 tank crews in a frontal assault across an open field during operation Goodwood is one of the all time armored blunders) and Market Garden (attacking down that exposed one lane highway and ignoring intelligence from both his own Photo Reconnaissance Wing and the Dutch Underground about the two SS Panzer Divisions refitting in the Arnhem area was one of the all time tactical blunders). If you are going to call Monty the greatest British general despite all these terrible mistakes, you are simply undervaluing the many great British generals who deserve the title.

I'm not even going to discuss Haig with you. If the little screw ups at the Somme and Paschendale you acknowledge, which cost half a million plus British lives aren't enough to disqualify him from the title "best general" your nation ever produced in your eyes, nothing I can say ever will.

Now, show me the big screw up on the part of Wellington, who briliantly kicked the butts of Napoleon's best Marshalls all over the Penninsula, and Napoleon himself at Waterloo? How is his unblemished record of victories over the French forces that had conquered all of continental Europe except Portugal and Russia not superior?

And what of Bill Slim, who defeated the Japanese in the Jungle, where their fighting skills were legendary? Where were his disatrous screw ups which cost the Allies? I just can't see putting Haig and Monty in the same conversation with Wellington and Slim.

 

[Rob]

Don't you think though Louis you do a grave injustice with your silver platter remark, it was his leadership, his inspiring of the troops that got the job done. His immediate affect on morale when he arrived was astonishing, he destroyed the myth of The unbeatable Rommel and gave them back their aggressive edge. Have to disagree with my friend Howard in that fighting Rommel was never easy, he had to be worn down, beaten and chased out of North Africa. Now the fact that you won't accept what is (if you don't mind me saying) generally accepted as Monty's victory at El Alamein perhaps a sign of the bias I suggested earlier. You do seem to gloss over this victory very quickly, when it's one of the most important victories of the War, the end of the begging as it were.


As for Haig I totally totally accept what disasters he over saw in 1916 and 1917, no one could really argue otherwise.but the fact remains he also oversaw the victories of the British army in the last hundred days or so that
ended the war quicker than it may have. For that he deserves his place and it looks like the public voters agree.

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

I see the posters still want some form of slanging match but, I still don't think it will happen.

I am sorry but your reply that I came into about Monty, mentioned ego and here is my fiction work read it and, learn. or thats the way it came over too me and a few who have contacted me and, the response about bias which, I firmly believe you have shown in posts about this and other generals.

I don't agree about it was all down to Monty's ego in relation to Baytown at all there is sufficient evidence that Monty was correct in his military thinking about the likely success of this operation. Kesslering ordered Traugotts LXXXVI panzer Corps to disengage from any contact with 8th Army and ordered substantial delaying tactics to be used and deployed.

Thus Baytown and its goals have been argued by some (including Monty at the time) as militarily unachievable and pointless. Carlo D'este critiqued Clarks overall planning for the crisis and not the slow movement of 8th Army. Its also worth remembering that Monty was short from the success of Afrika and opinion in the newly emerging media war was high and, one would expect him to ride with this. Its not correct IMO to say Monty did nothing but sooth his ego with reporters etc the basis for his reluctance was militarily sound in his mind.

Its easy to say you have a bias towards Monty as was said about similar responses from you about Haig. I too have read about Monty since I was thirteen and continued to this day. I could segregate several works into those which would allow one to say I make this comment based on facts and the other half would then support the contrary. You can make Monty a hero or a semi villain whichever way you wish as has been done with Haig earlier last year. The facts about most of these battles are still somewhat debatable.

I am still somewhat confused about your reference to months of research and positing facts about Monty so, why make a fictional novel?? Would it not have been more sensible to produce a non fiction?
Mitch

 

[marco55]

Wellington was the best.:redface2::salute::
Mark

 

[Louis Badolato]

Rob,

I credit Monty for excellent leadership during the retreat at Dunkirk. But lets go through El Alamein before we give Monty credit for a great victory.

We begin with logistics: Because of the location of El Alamein (the Germans had driven the Allies all the way across North Africa and would have won before Monty got involved had the ANZAC forces not held out against all odds at Tobruk) Rommel had incredibly long supply lines from his base in Tunis, while Monty took command of an army within spitting distance of its base at Cairo. Because Hitler viewed North Africa as a secondary theater of the war, Rommel was sent only 50% of the supplies he needed. Then, thanks to the geniouses at Bletchley Park (to whom we all owe an unbelievably great dept of gratitude), the Allies knew when and where the shipments were being sent across the Mediteranean, and thanks to the stout Hearts of Oak of the British Navy and the brave men of the RAF on Fortress Malta, only 10 to 20 percent of the supplies and reinforcements were reaching North Africa.

We move next to intelligence. I already mentioned the heroes of Bletchley Park, who cracked the German's code, so Monty had the benefit of knowing Rommel's every dispatch. Then there were the even bigger heroes of the Long Range Dessert Group, whose road watch allowed Monty to know the numbers, types, and units of troops, vehicles and supplies that actually reached the front.

Next, the deception campaign. The British used the same types of brilliant deceptive practices used leading up to the Normandy invasion, including trucks disguised as tanks, small scale inflatable tanks, and a magician (I'm not kidding, an honest to goodness vaudeville magician came up with a bunch of the deceptions) to mislead Rommel's forces. This was set up by Alexander, in overall command, not by Monty.

No discussion of the campaign would be complete without discussion of the RAF. Monty enjoyed complete air supremacy.

Finally, the forces involved. As Howard mentioned, Monty waited for the delivery of 500 brand new Sherman Tanks (something that got his immediate predecessor in command - I forget whether it was Auckinlek or Wavell - sacked by Churchill for dragging his feet), allowing him to have a 5 to 1 advantage in armor, as well as men and artillery. It should be noted that he commanded excellent British, Commonwealth and Anzac forces. The majority of Rommel's men and equipment were Italian. The M13 Tank was a piece of garbage, and the Italian troops were woefully underequipped. The Italian officers were for the most part a disaster.

Under these facts, Rob, you, a post man, would have kicked Rommel's butt. Oh, and one last point. Rommel was in Italy when the battle commenced, and through a stroke of excellent luck, the German commander died on the first day of the battle. So Monty didn't beat Rommel, he beat an Army without a commander in place - a headless beast.

Monty was a great motivator, so he gets credit for morale, but to me, that's all he gets credit for at El Alamein.

 

[Rob]

Louis my friend, I can see we are never going to agree on this one :wink2:

Monty took the battered 8th Army and turned them into a legendary force that defeated Rommel, Rommel was absent at the start but soon took control again, Monty's leadership and planning were key. He deserved the plaudits and accolades he received and the affection he is still held in here. When I eventually make it to the big apple I'm going to knock on your door armed with a bottle of Scotland's finest and we can talk the Desert War. It's always a pleasure to debate with you and I admire the way you stick to your guns, even though we disagree,

All the best

Rob

PS we certainly agree on one thing, the guys and gals of Bletchley Park are absolute heroes and deserve our eternal gratitude

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis...

I see the posters still want some form of slanging match but, I still don't think it will happen.

I am sorry but your reply that I came into about Monty, mentioned ego and here is my fiction work read it and, learn. or thats the way it came over too me and a few who have contacted me and, the response about bias which, I firmly believe you have shown in posts about this and other generals.

I don't agree about it was all down to Monty's ego in relation to Baytown at all there is sufficient evidence that Monty was correct in his military thinking about the likely success of this operation. Kesslering ordered Traugotts LXXXVI panzer Corps to disengage from any contact with 8th Army and ordered substantial delaying tactics to be used and deployed.

Thus Baytown and its goals have been argued by some (including Monty at the time) as militarily unachievable and pointless. Carlo D'este critiqued Clarks overall planning for the crisis and not the slow movement of 8th Army. Its also worth remembering that Monty was short from the success of Afrika and opinion in the newly emerging media war was high and, one would expect him to ride with this. Its not correct IMO to say Monty did nothing but sooth his ego with reporters etc the basis for his reluctance was militarily sound in his mind.

Its easy to say you have a bias towards Monty as was said about similar responses from you about Haig. I too have read about Monty since I was thirteen and continued to this day. I could segregate several works into those which would allow one to say I make this comment based on facts and the other half would then support the contrary. You can make Monty a hero or a semi villain whichever way you wish as has been done with Haig earlier last year. The facts about most of these battles are still somewhat debatable.

I am still somewhat confused about your reference to months of research and positing facts about Monty so, why make a fictional novel?? Would it not have been more sensible to produce a non fiction?
Mitch

Mitch,

I helped a friend of mine who is a novelist with historical research for a rather unusual piece of fiction about a WWII with witches, vampires and wearwolves, and she encouraged me to write my own historical fiction novel. I was inspired by the many threads on this forum arguing about WWII, particularly with regard to the merits of Monty and Patton, to write a novel about a Judge Advocate's General attorney/investigator sent to investigate the Patton slapping incidents, who stumbles upon the events in Sicily and Italy I have been describing on this thread. That's why I spent months of research on drafting a novel.

As far as opposition Bay Town is concerned, I totally agree that it was a bad idea on the part of Alexander. That being said, the photo reconnaissance showed that the Germans did not fall for the diversion, and that Monty's 8th army could easily move North and draw off German forces to relieve the beach head at Salerno. He didn't, in violation of 3 written orders, one delivered by Alexander's chief of staff. Based on these facts, I blame Monty for many of the casualties suffered by the Allies in the beach head, and I have a suspicion as to why he refused to move: Monty dragged his feet in the hopes of using Ike’s outrage over the casualties to get Alexander relieved and taking his place. Monty, like Patton, was full of hubris and wanted the glory of high command. That's the way I see it. I could be completely wrong, and many people surely have reached other equally supportable conclusions from these events.

That being said, have you ever read the book written about Monty by Freddie De Guingand, his chief of staff? Despite the fact that De Guingand owed his career to Monty (De Guingand failed the entrance exams for Staff College, but Monty intervened to get him into Camberley), if you read between the lines of the book, you can see De Guingand did not think highly of Montgomery's motives, abilities and skills.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis my friend, I can see we are never going to agree on this one :wink2:

Monty took the battered 8th Army and turned them into a legendary force that defeated Rommel, Rommel was absent at the start but soon took control again, Monty's leadership and planning were key. He deserved the plaudits and accolades he received and the affection he is still held in here. When I eventually make it to the big apple I'm going to knock on your door armed with a bottle of Scotland's finest and we can talk the Desert War. It's always a pleasure to debate with you and I admire the way you stick to your guns, even though we disagree,

All the best

Rob

PS we certainly agree on one thing, the guys and gals of Bletchley Park are absolute heroes and deserve our eternal gratitude

Rob,

I'll have a couple of bottles of the water of life waiting for you when you arrive, and I'll be happy to continue our debate. I am not so full of myself that I don't realize that there are many facts I am not yet aware of, and I am always willing to learn.

Warmest regards,

Louis

 

[Rob]

Rob,

I'll have a couple of bottles of the water of life waiting for you when you arrive, and I'll be happy to continue our debate. I am not so full of myself that I don't realize that there are many facts I am not yet aware of, and I am always willing to learn.

Warmest regards,

Louis

A couple of bottles and I'll be calling Monty every name under the Sun Louis!:wink2: On top of this if you get me sat there debating Monty whilst upstairs is the biggest K&C display in the world, YOU are the strategic genius!:salute::

All the best

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

A couple of bottles and I'll be calling Monty every name under the Sun Louis!:wink2: On top of this if you get me sat there debating Monty whilst upstairs is the biggest K&C display in the world, YOU are the strategic genius!:salute::

All the best

Rob

We can hold the debate up in the display - you can even hold the Monty figure (I do have one on display) while we toss back a couple and have a heated discussion.

I must warn you, if you do start calling Monty dirty names, I will get it on video!^&grin

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

Just a couple of points to the post for Rob. Stumme died of a heart attack and yes this paralysed the axis forces until Thoma took over but, the battle with all the advantages you state was still not a sure fire victory and Rommel was in field you make out that he was gone from the theatre in absolute.

I have read the books in question but, again I don't believe in reading between the lines or guess working decisions by field commanders thats been very much the heart of the problemin academice prose over what are controversial characters. I responded to Jazzeum that much was stated about the envy from senior officers under his command and, again its all what if's and supposition that they would really have done any different or any better. I don't disagree about the hubris I think that was part of the media influence in the war which, in terms of combat, was quite knew IMO but, its arguable, that although this was part it was militarily based decisions that motivated Monty first.
Mitch

Mitch,

I helped a friend of mine who is a novelist with historical research for a rather unusual piece of fiction about a WWII with witches, vampires and wearwolves, and she encouraged me to write my own historical fiction novel. I was inspired by the many threads on this forum arguing about WWII, particularly with regard to the merits of Monty and Patton, to write a novel about a Judge Advocate's General attorney/investigator sent to investigate the Patton slapping incidents, who stumbles upon the events in Sicily and Italy I have been describing on this thread. That's why I spent months of research on drafting a novel.

As far as opposition Bay Town is concerned, I totally agree that it was a bad idea on the part of Alexander. That being said, the photo reconnaissance showed that the Germans did not fall for the diversion, and that Monty's 8th army could easily move North and draw off German forces to relieve the beach head at Salerno. He didn't, in violation of 3 written orders, one delivered by Alexander's chief of staff. Based on these facts, I blame Monty for many of the casualties suffered by the Allies in the beach head, and I have a suspicion as to why he refused to move: Monty dragged his feet in the hopes of using Ike’s outrage over the casualties to get Alexander relieved and taking his place. Monty, like Patton, was full of hubris and wanted the glory of high command. That's the way I see it. I could be completely wrong, and many people surely have reached other equally supportable conclusions from these events.

That being said, have you ever read the book written about Monty by Freddie De Guingand, his chief of staff? Despite the fact that De Guingand owed his career to Monty (De Guingand failed the entrance exams for Staff College, but Monty intervened to get him into Camberley), if you read between the lines of the book, you can see De Guingand did not think highly of Montgomery's motives, abilities and skills.

 

[Northgate Woods]

Louis & Rob,
Fantastic to see two great cobbers of mine go head to head over an issue of Military History without the interjectors coming in to make personal attacks. No whinging sheilas here. Keep up the great debate guys. One day we three will get together at a worldwide Treefrogger's convention and chew the fat over a very old bottle of scotch.
Cheers Howard:salute:::salute::

 

[Sans Culotte]

How does the National Army Museum measure "greatest?" It can't be like the U.S. Supreme Court justice who defined "obscenity" as "I know it when I see it." If the definition is kept to someone who combined grand strategy, tactics, realpolitics, etc., then there would be fewer Brits on the short list. Then, you have to decide who was not only "great" in his own age, but who, like a Nelson, would be "great" in any age. If you want to weigh in with a leader's personal & professional shortcomings to the nth degree, then you are left with no one.