new AK sets (2 Viewers)

[Louis Badolato]

Ozdigger,

You are a true diplomat, but way to kind to the allied high command. Just for the record, the fact that Montgomery was popular with his troops is meaningless. Many of the worst Generals in history were vary popular with their troops, including McClellen, perhaps the worst general of all time, who had Montgomery's exact flaw: he too was overcautious to the point of timidity. For example, late in the war, as Monty prepared to cross the Rhine, he complained loudly and bitterly that German opposition would be too strong and demanded additional troops, while the "strong" German opposition was preparing to surrender. As far as his grating personality, he was **** near successful in turning the Americans against the English, as, during the Battle of the Bulge, after sitting on his @ss and doing nothing while we struggled to turn back the tide, Monty took credit for defeating the German advance, basically stating that the Americans panicked and he saved the day. He was an incompetent egomaniac who only stayed in command because of his one true success, defeating what was left of the Afrika Corps. Every other major operation he principally planned turned into a fiasco, from Good Wood through Market Garden. The British needed a hero early in the war, and he was the only one available. He wasn't half the commander that Slim was.

As far as Patton being Americas best WWII general, not a chance. He was nearly as bad as Montgomery, only his flaw was being overaggressive rather than overcautious. But in the race to the bottom of best WWII American General in Europe, the only one who struck me as being any good was Ridgeway. MacArthur also deserves mention as being far better than the european commanders.

Ike was a politician, not a soldier. He consistently made poor decisions in choosing his commanders, from Operation Torch to choosing Montgomery as the commander of AEF (although he was heavily pressured by Churchill, and can't be totally blamed for Monty).

 

[jazzeum]

I'm not sure Ike had that many choices of Generals to pick since he had to pick a British General to command the 21st Army Group and it probably came down to Monty or Alexander and CIGS Brooke didn't have a good view of Alexander, at least not as a leader of an army of that size.

I don't think it was a question of his being popular but as OzDigger points out not exposing them needlessly to unnecessary risk. He was an egomaniac but then what successful person isn't probably. If you don't have a supreme confidence in yourself, especially when you're leading men to certain death, then it's a recipe for disaster. I'd like to know one leader who doesn't that confidence in itself. People have said he took somebody else's plan, the Afrika Korps was finished, etc. but he took command at a point when British morale was low: they'd just lost Tobruk and the Germans looked poised to take Alexandria and then Cairo and then drive through the Middle East. Churchill could hardly face Roosevelt having just lost Tobruk. Yes, it may not have been his plan but he executed it and he restored confidence to Britain when they sorely needed it. Churchill could hardly face Roosevelt having just lost Tobruk. It's not only having the forces but knowing how to use them and he did. And that's that.

 

[OzDigger]

Hi Louse, that was a quick response - I sorta was expecting one from you

I have a business appointment to attend in the city this afternoon and won't be able to give your response to Monty (not one of my favourites btw) a reasonable reply for some time.

Meanwhile: yes I was being diplomatic. I'm trying out my new muzzle because I wouldn't want to be known as a mad dog that bites people for the heck of it - OzDigger took my baby

Suffice to say I agree entirely with your opinion of Patton (I did say 'fighting' General) and Eisenhower. Being an Aussie I am loathe to defend a wanker like Monty but I'll give it a shot tonight when I'm back home.

 

[Rob]

I Think we may need to calm a little and get things into perspective.All these men be it Monty,Patton or whoever did their best.They were all human and subject to the same weaknesses and frailties as the rest of us.Whether you like them or not they did their bit and helped bring that terrible war to an end.Calling people"wankers"is a little bit sad in my opinion.(did you meet him?) We have no idea the stresses and strains these people were under and they carried the weight and hopes of the free world on their shoulders,to an extent we can't possibly comprehend.

I am also concerned that there may be people on this forum that dislike a certain famous person simply because they came from a certain country,come on people we are all bigger than that.None of the aforementioned generals were perfect,we all know that.But thank god for all of them,for without them we may still be living in a Nazi ruled world of hatred and persecution under the most awful regime in history.And finally lets remember something else about Rommel. Great general he may have been,he was also a NAZI.

 

[Steven Chong]

... Aside from Sierra, are there anymore shops to visit in the SF area ... By the way, anyone have a list of Toy Soldier Shows for So. CA in 2006?Carlos

Dear Carlos,
Sierra is the only toy soldier shop in Northern California. They are located in Los Gatos, which is 1.5 hours south of San Francisco. The West Coaster is the only 2006 toy soldier show in Southern California. Actually, it's the only show in the Western United States.

 

[Eazy]

It's funny how the forum is so angry with the Generals on our side.

Maybe we should start a new thread where Americans, Brits and Aussies can unite. (yeah right that'll really happen)

Eg:

That Field Marshall Model. What a waste of space.

Or

Keitel. What a shambles.

or

Uncle Joe; Cuddly Soviet leader or sociopathic, genocidal tyrant? Discuss.

 

[panda1gen]

Hi Guys

Can't resist this one!

Monty - 'As quick as a ferret and about as likeable' was one of his appraisals. If you read more than one of his biographies he was a very complex man. Personally brave he experienced combat on the western front in WW1 and was determined not to waste his men's lives. Best in 'set peice battles' such as Alamein. Read 'Crucible of War' - trilogy by Barrie Pitt, the best desert history ever. He was however a very good general Louis, won over the troops very quickly by explaining their job to them and communicating effectively - and was particularly disliked by US colleagues because of his 'ferret' side which is easy to understand. I agree with Ozdigger - he was an excellent strategist and planned not only D-Day but also the breakout and potential run into Germany. He argued correctly with Eisenhower that a broad front breakout after Normandy would just run everyone out of supplies and that he should back Patton or himself but not both.

The best british generals in my opinion were Wavell and O'Connor - the best by a mile - read about the 'six day raid' in 'Crucible of War' when 30,000 Commonwealth troops including the excellent Anzac and Indian divisions pushed out 250,000 Italians capturing huge amounts of prisoners and material. The reward was to have none of the worn out equpment replaced and have the best units sent to Greece (who didn't want them) at the point of victory allowing a certain Rommel in. Slim and Auchinleck were also excellent on the British side. Wavell and Auchinleck were both sacked by Churchill (of Gallipoli, Greece and Anzio debacles fame) - politicians eh, Battle of Britian excepted, who needs them.

Patton - also a complex personality - read 'An Army at Dawn' - he sacked many US commanders but was he any more effective for his arguably bullying style. Risk taking for personal glory? Eisenhower - no real combat experience, politician and manager, not a good strategist. Weak at times but politically effective it seems and had the big battalions. Bradley was the best US General from what I have read on the US side. In the same book there is frequent reference to anti-british sentiment from all of the US heirarchy - also an agenda on the end of the British Empire, touchy stuff as we British clearly lost the war - although probably about time.

Von Manstein was the architect of the best counter attack in history after Stalingrad but wasn't he a nazi sympathiser? Guderian was good in 1940 particularly but also in Russia (before he was sacked for arguing with Hitler). Rommel was lucky - but you make your own luck. He was excellent at getting more than you could expect out of your own men and undermining confidence in the enemy. He really only won for as long as he did though (and it should be remembered that he was defeated several times too)because of the poor command and control on the British side, which tended to fight at regiment rather than divisional level, including very poor signals discipline. The British were poor at concentrating their power and as a result, Rommel won up to Alamein through excellent combined arms but had no right to achieve what he did with what he had. At the end of the day though, he lost almost 95% of his entire command, much of that due to lack of attention to logistics, ultra code breakers and naval/air interdiction from Malta sinking much of his kit before it reached him.

My vote for the best Senior General of the War in all armies - Wavell. Did the impossible over a continental size command, fighting on three fronts simultaneously with nothing, had what was left after a stunning victory taken off him and was then sacked for his trouble by Churchill. Bradley or Slim close second. Best training General - Sir Percy Hobart of Western Desert Force 1939-40 and then, via a role as corporal in the Home Guard, the 79th Armoured division ready for D-Day.

Role on the desert sets - any 'cherry pickers' with ww1 vintage Rolls Royce Armoured cars waiting for the Italian advance in 1940? A desert 88 or the highly professional Italian artillery? (Yes I did say highly professional).

Kevin

 

[jazzeum]

Thank goodness the cavalry is finally here. Louis and I have been waging this little battle about Monty almost since the Board started. See http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=267&highlight=montgomery for instance.

Barrie Pitt's books are excellent. Packed with information and very readable. His profile of Wavell is superb. For an evenhanded analyis of Monty and his role in D Day, I recommend Carlo D'Este's Decision at Normandy.

 

[Eazy]

Barrie Pitt is also the editor of the excellent Purnell's History of World War 2 Magazine that came out in the 70's.

I bought the main set off Ebay for a tenner a couple of years back! It's 90 or so issues filled with terrific black and white and colour photos and articles written by leading historians and also Generals and officers that were actually involved in the events at the time on all sides.

It's all in chronological order and gives quite a balanced view of events, written before all the revisionists started.

 

[jazzeum]

There's a bunch of Purnell's on ebay, seemingly reasonably priced. According to the listing, it was co edited by Barrie Pitt and Liddell Hart. If anyone has any particular recommendations, please post.

 

[Eazy]

There's a bunch of Purnell's on ebay, seemingly reasonably priced. According to the listing, it was co edited by Barrie Pitt and Liddell Hart. If anyone has any particular recommendations, please post.

I'd recommend them all to be honest for the fantastic photgraphs alone. Not to mention you get articles written by people like Zhukov.

Here's a link to a set in Canada. it looks like it was published by Marshall Cavendish in North America.

http://cgi.ebay.com/96-ISSUES-HISTORY-of-the-SECOND-WORLD-WAR-COMPLETE-SET_W0QQitemZ7005065337QQcategoryZ280QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Here's a set in Britain


http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/HISTORY-OF-SECOND-WORLD-WAR-PURNELL-128-ISSUES_W0QQitemZ6590932157QQcategoryZ101070QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Standout issues for me are 2 devoted to the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa. Amazing large colour photos.

 

[OzDigger]

I have noted a few of the Brad v Louis 'Monty' arguements on the boards

I've read several accounts by Aussies that served in Africa and most did consider Montgomery to be a wanker because of his rather 'unique' personality. But (Rob) they still respected him for the way he improved Allied moral and turned the tide against the 'unbeatable' Rommel.

As for his performance in France and after.

Firstly, I feel few Generals could have planed the D-Day invasion as well as Montgomery, and he was the primary reason for its success imo. Of course there were some things that did not go according to plan but it is wrong to blame Mongomery for these. Most know that the Commonwealth Forces at Sword and Juno were meant to take Caen on the first day. The main cause of that failure was the unexpected presence of German tanks between them and Caen (the Germans expected the invasion at Pas de Calaise remember).

The Germans knew the importance of Caen and the coast to the Commonwealth Forces and continued to subsequently reinforce it with heavier forces of their best troops and tanks including their Panzer Division elite. These Divisions enjoyed far superior material, very experienced officers, and combat pratice that was lacking on the Allied side. The Germans gained bitter experience on the Eastern Front and became adept at defence, camouflage and counter-attacks.

Despite Allied air superiority and frequently being out-numbered the Germans were able to halt or at worst slow down the operations that Montgomery continued to launch to take Caen and breakout of Normandy. Rather than blame Montgomery for any failures, I feel it is fairer to 'blame' the fighting spirit of the Germans that continued to battle on when everyone believed them to be beaten - on more than one occassion right up until their eventual defeat.

Many books and movies, which are usually targeted at American audiences, frequently do show Montgomery as being an incompetant and bumbling fool and he is often used as a scapegoat for the 'unsuccessful' operations. However he is rarely recognised for 'his' successful operations such as D-Day itself and his efforts to turn the 'Battle of the Bulge'. He is even blamed for events like the 'Falaise Pocket' where many Germans were able to escape after their attack to split US and Algo-Canadian forces failed. Yet many consider Omar Bradley (Operation Cobra) to be the main cause of this 'failure' because he halted Patton's advance as he feared friendly fire between US and Commonwealth forces.

Of course revisitionists continue to find 'new' history and modify interpretations regarding World War Two and other conflicts but in the end it is pointless to try and change what is in the past.

 

[Rob]

Ozdigger,

That is an excellant and well balanced post.You are quite right,people often blame Monty for Caen,Arnhem etc and sometimes (as you said)forget the Bulge,El Alamein etc.I'm not saying he was faultless, no one was.I just want him to get some of the credit he well deserves.You are also quite right about the film industry.Even in "Ryan" they just had to have a dig at him.Its good to see such a broad view of events as you state them.Its by reading such even handed views that people may be enlightened and we may one day end up with less films such as U571!!!.

 

[jazzeum]

Eazy, thanks for the links. I will check them out.

OzDigger, nice job like Rob says. Further, like Rob says he did have his faults (who doesn't?) but let's give the man his due where it is due.

 

[Eazy]

Ozdigger,

That is an excellant and well balanced post.You are quite right,people often blame Monty for Caen,Arnhem etc and sometimes (as you said)forget the Bulge,El Alamein etc.I'm not saying he was faultless, no one was.I just want him to get some of the credit he well deserves.You are also quite right about the film industry.Even in "Ryan" they just had to have a dig at him.Its good to see such a broad view of events as you state them.Its by reading such even handed views that people may be enlightened and we may one day end up with less films such as U571!!!.

I winced at that scene in SPR when the Ted Danson character criticizes Monty after casually gunning down a roomful of Germans, John Wayne style, with his trusty Thompson.

It seemed heavy handed and out of place. Not to mention the fact it's about the only mention in the film the other Allies get.

 

[Rob]

Totally agree with you Eazy,heavy handed and out of place.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I can't believe that you guys are including the Battle of the Bulge in Monty's purported successes. If you can possibly explain what he did (other than sit on his laurels and talk to the media) while the U.S. Airborne forces held the line and Patton and the 8th Airforce came to the rescue I would love to hear it. And as far as I have read, the planning of D-Day was a joint effort under the control of Ike. Now, as far as Caen is concerned, the British met minimal resistance on the beach, but inexplicably failed to advance until after the Germans had the opportunity to reinforce and dig in. Once this had occurred, instead of altering his plans and bypassing and encircling Caen, Monty wasted thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks in fruitless frontal assaults with armor across open fields against dug in German anti-tank weapons. Does anyone else have a problem with this tactic? By the way, while this was going on, he insisted that he was going to break out, but after the complete failure of his breakout plan, he (as usual) changed his story, and told the press that he meant to draw the German forces to him and let the Americans break out. As far as the Falaise gap is concerned, just do the math. The U.S. forces covered a lot of miles, and Monty only had to cover a couple to close the gap, but didn't get the job done. That should be Monty's epitaph: he was so overcautious, he just didn't get the job done (Caen, Falaise, the Bulge). But then again, maybe its good that he was so overcautious, he obvously didn't have much of a grasp of modern offensive tactics. Operation Market Garden, his one "great" offensive plan sent 30 Corps on a raised one lane road where one tank being knocked out could (and did) halt the entire advance. This was his great plan to end the war by Christmas. And then, after the excellent British and American airborne troops held out for days and days, loosing almost the entire British 1st Airborne, instead of admitting his plan was a failure, and pulling the lightly armed airborne out to fight another day, he left them in the front lines for 30 days, missusing the highly specialized airborne troops as infantry and getting a large proportion of these elite troops knocked out in a type of fighting they were not equipped to carry out. You can try to sing Monty's praises until doomsday, but until you can adequately explain (1) the frontal tank assault into dug in anti tank forces at Caen, (2) the disasterous planning and execution of Market Garden; (3) the failure to act at all in relieving the American forces during the Battle of the Bulge, after being given command of Bradley's U.S. forces above the bulge; and (4) his consistently outrageous false statements to the media, those of us in the U.S. are going to continue to call a spade a spade. Monty was, like Haig, an overrated underskilled British General "declared" a hero by the British propaganda machine.

 

[Rob]

Dear oh dear.You'll be blaming him for stealing dorothy's slippers in the wizard of oz next!.I think you may have other issues apart from Monty here,so i'll just say for the sake of peace on this forum "interesting viewpoint there..thanks for that"

 

[jazzeum]

Trying to play the peacemaker here, but there are valid points to be made on both sides. He deserves credit for the Alamein victories and some blame for what happened in Europe.

There was a plan in place for D Day before was appointed head of 21st Army Group but he significantly changed the plan and it basically became his plan, with his timetables for breakouts and such. It was never the intent to draw the German armor to Caen but after that became a bog of a mess, it was the Allied intent to let the Germans devote their resources to that area of the Cotentin so that the Americans could then breakout. The Germans were eventually getting bled. Eventually the Germans started to move their resources west.

I think you oversimplify Falaise but that is a very controversial point which we're not going to solve here, especially if historians still debate it. In D'Este's book "Decision in Normandy, D'Este writes "Whatever failure there may have been to close the noose sooner had less to do with lapses in Allied generalship and more to do with the German will to survive, as US forces were to have conclusively proved to them during the Battle of the Bulge." D'Este quotes Lieutenant General Bedell Smith telling Dr. Forrest Pogue after the war that: "the closing of the Falaise Gap was not Monty's fault. D'Este says "according to Smith, the principal reason was German determination to keep the escape corridor to the east open." So I think it's far from clear that you can blame Monty or the other Allied generals for the failure to close the Gap.

Now, the above D'Este reference is something that I'd posted earlier in 2005 when this came up so here's the link to when we had this never-ending discussion, http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96&page=2&highlight=falaise

This is obviously an issue on which many of us will never agree. However, as I said above Monty does need to be given credit for the success at Alamein.

 

[Rob]

Brad,

Once again another excellant balanced view.Credit to both you and Ozdigger for laying it out as it really was.We need to look at all the facts and accept that yes he made mistakes but he was also a great leader.And whatever people might think he beat Rommel and put the heart back into the 8th Army.(unless of course people think it was Patton that won at Alamein!).And whilst i fully accept that Patton was a great general, he also made mistakes.What was he thinking trying to rescue his son-in law?.They were all human.

Brad you can possibly confirm this for me.Didn't i hear/read that the 101st at Bastogne flatly denied ever needing Patton to save them?.I may be wrong in this.