Patton/ Montgomery discussion (2 Viewers)

Currahee Chris

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,776
You know, things seem pretty quiet and uneventful so why not post a thread about Patton and Monty!! {sm4}{sm4}

Alright, this isn't meant to be an attack at either man or their respectvie fans. I just watched Patton over the weekend and I got to thinking- did the antagonistic attitudes that these men shared towards one another help the allies?? In other words, did the relentless energy possessed by each man bring out the "best" in the other or make the other man try harder? You see this sort of thing in the workforce or at school where two people who may be naturally competitive are set in the same class/ job etc and try to one up one another and actually better themselves because of all the extra effort.

Could the Allied efforts have been hindered to some degree if these two competitive men were not posted in such close proximity of one another?

Interested in hearing your thoughts.............
 
All of the research that I have come across shows that Patton did not care for Montgomery at all and vice versa.Patton was in direct competition with Monty for winning battles and conquering territory before the British army could get there.
Would it be safe to say that Patton pushed and sacrificed his troops to gain ground as much and as quickly as possible, while Monty took more time in planning and preparation before jumping out into an attack ? Luckily this competitive atmosphere took place between two allies against a mutual opponent ! Once the Bulge offensive was pushed back it only took another 4 months for the Western front to be across the Rhine and the Soviet steamroller to move in from the east for the kill.
As a side note..... After the surrender of Germany, Patton was more than eager to continue the fight and take the war straight to the Russians as he felt that sooner or later we were going to have to fight them anyway so why not do it now ! To get back on track IMO the Patton/Monty rivalry supplied nothing but positive energy to achieve the end result...... VICTORY !
 
I think both men were brilliant in their own right did they have faults?? yes, but, at the time in the era they served and came from they did what they thought to be right with the aim of bringing about the end of the war ASAP

Many have sat in comfort and ridiculed them and their actions retroactively who could not run a tea party but, have right and morality supposedly on their side.

Did they spur each other on I am sure they did they wanted the glory that all generals want whether openly or secretly

I think we may have moved slower through the campaigns in the ETO had there not been the immense personality conflicts between the generals and the different allied forces.

One thing is for sure without them the war would have probably either lasted longer or even worse
Mitch
 
I think both men were brilliant in their own right did they have faults?? yes, but, at the time in the era they served and came from they did what they thought to be right with the aim of bringing about the end of the war ASAP

Many have sat in comfort and ridiculed them and their actions retroactively who could not run a tea party but, have right and morality supposedly on their side.

Did they spur each other on I am sure they did they wanted the glory that all generals want whether openly or secretly

I think we may have moved slower through the campaigns in the ETO had there not been the immense personality conflicts between the generals and the different allied forces.

One thing is for sure without them the war would have probably either lasted longer or even worse
Mitch

I fully agree with this. Both did indeed have plenty of faults and character weaknesses, but thank God for the pair of them. Thats all I'm going to say on this as its normally me that gets an argument going!^&grin:wink2:

Rob
 
Rather than working together and possibly achieving a better plan of campaign, IMO their rivalry may have lead to some poor decisions and cost allied lives. Market Garden is one where Monty fought hard to get approval from Eisenhower for the operation, but late intelligence which proved to be correct, suggested not to go ahead with Market Garden. But after all the effort to get it approved, it wasn't going to be cancelled. Would it have been better to just have proceeded with Patton's offensive instead rather than diverting supplies to Monty?

And there is Patton's threat to fire on Canadian soldiers in Italy if they passed Patton's army in races to Messina and Rome. Would those moves have put the Germans off balance and made it unnecessary for the Canadians and Brits to slug their way throught several German defensive lines and Ortona?

Despite their many great accomplishments, IMO, they were both selfish, self-centred jerks.

Terry
 
I agree with Phantom Warrior on Operation Market Garden.
Operation Market Garden should have never taken place. Even though the intel was late it still reported large numbers of German Panzers in the area. The decision to still go ahead with the airborne landings because "there was too much in the works already"The end result:Large numbers of American, British, Polish airborne troops dropped near 2 fully equipped panzer divisions. Patton sacrificed the blood, sweat, and totall exhaustion of his own men to get to the prize first on many occasions which was supposed to ultimately culminate with Berlin. Smart move by Ike to allow the Russians to slug that one out and sustain the 350,000 casualties.All in all Monty and Patton were both successfull and legendary allied commanders each in their own unique style. Great idea for a thread Currahee. Keeps the blood pumping !
 
Firstly, thanks CC. some really good discussion topics you have raised

In relation to MG the actual written plan and its objectives guys was sound. The capture of the Ruhr would have without doubt ended the war faster than Pattons drive into germany. That things were not perfect does not mean it should not have proceeded even with the information they had. I certainly believe from everything I have seen and read that XXX corps would have been able to destroy the two SS divisions had they met.

I think looking at the disposition of the 9th and 10th SS divisions they were far from fully equiped and, most of the equipment was railed back to germany or was in the state of being so. The rush to the Arnhem area of german armour bound for elsewhere shows that point.

Its a what if but, I would venture that had the western allies taken Berlin the germans would not have fought so strongly as they did against the russians. There was very little hope (or, less so) surrendering to the russians than the western allied forces
Mitch
 
Firstly, thanks CC. some really good discussion topics you have raised

In relation to MG the actual written plan and its objectives guys was sound. The capture of the Ruhr would have without doubt ended the war faster than Pattons drive into germany. That things were not perfect does not mean it should not have proceeded even with the information they had. I certainly believe from everything I have seen and read that XXX corps would have been able to destroy the two SS divisions had they met.

I think looking at the disposition of the 9th and 10th SS divisions they were far from fully equiped and, most of the equipment was railed back to germany or was in the state of being so. The rush to the Arnhem area of german armour bound for elsewhere shows that point.

Its a what if but, I would venture that had the western allies taken Berlin the germans would not have fought so strongly as they did against the russians. There was very little hope (or, less so) surrendering to the russians than the western allied forces
Mitch

If you were Russian taking Berlin in 1945 it was an eye for an eye.Revenge was on many a Soviet soldiers mind. They lost more lives than anyone....30 million dead ???
 
In Sicily, both Patton and Montgomery were afforded the opportunity to pin down and destroy substantial German forces, including the entire Herman Goering Division. Instead of engaging, pinning down, and annihilating these forces as they had been ordered, they got caught up in a race for personal glory. When Alexander issued Patton a direct order to stop pushing for Messina and engage the escaping Germans to prevent their escape, the son of a ***** responded that the “orders were garbled”, put his HQ on radio silence, and kept right on going.

Both Patton and Monty bypassed these 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 thousands of Allied Casualties.

The results of this malfeasance were almost immediately felt during the invasion of mainland Italy. The Allies were getting the snot beat out of them in the Salerno beach head. Harold Alexander ordered Monty, who had landed unopposed in Calabria in an unsuccessful diversion operation, to attack north and relieve the Allied Forces in the Beachhead on September 9th. Monty sat on his hands, gossiping with reporters, despite further orders that ‘it is of the utmost importance that you maintain pressure upon the Germans’ on September 10th and a personal visit from Major General John Harding, Alexander's Chief of Staff telling him how critical it was to move to relieve the Forces in the beachhead on September 12th. He made up some excuse about Nazi engineers setting booby traps. There were no Germans, and there were no significant booby traps. Monty didn’t get off his *** and move north until September 15th. Before the Allies broke out of the beachead the US VI Corps took 3,500 casualties, while British 10th Corps on the southern flank lost 5,500. And the Nazis Monty and Patton let escape from Sicily would inflict tens of thousands more casualties before the Italian Campaign was over.

Then there is Patton's little "no prisoners" order to the 45th Thunderbird Division on the dawn of the invasion of Sicily as part of his race with Monty.

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. Several 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.’

When this was reported to Bradley, he ordered that the investigation into the murder of the Axis soldiers be dropped, presumably to protect Patton from the charge of war crimes.

Patton’s ‘take no prisoners’ speech jeopardized the lives of tens of thousands of Allied P.O.W.’s - when you think that the 45th division massacred more German and Italian P.O.W.s than the SS did American G.I.'s at Malmeady, if the news had gotten out, it would have meant open season on all Allied P.O.W.s in German custody.

And that doesn't even take into account Market Garden. We all know the basics. What a lot of people don't know is that the scene in a Bridge too Far with the intelligence briefing of Lieutenant General Frederick Arthur Montague ‘Boy’ Browning really happened.

British Photo Reconaissance (under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Cotton, one of the most interesting characters to come out of WWII, but a relatively unknown hero) briefed Browning’s intelligence officer, Major Brian Urquhart, on the presence of Armor in the area around Arnhem. Urquhart, a good soldier, immediately understood the potential consequences, and briefed Browning on the issue. When Urquhart recommended that Field Marshal Montgomery and General Eisenhower be briefed, so that the problem could be vetted and addressed, Browning categorically denied the recommendation. Browning told them in no uncertain terms that, “two slides would not postpone or derail the greatest airborne operation of all time.”

When Urquhart pressed the issue, Browning said he would have ‘no part in defeatist chatter,’ and refused him permission to raise the issue with SHAEF. Major Urquhart was relieved from his position upon trumped up allegations of ‘battle fatigue’.”

As a result, a lot of good men in the American, British and Polish Airborne forces were sacrificed to Monty, Browning and Patton's vain pursuit of glory.

So no, there competition, in my opinion, caused a lot more harm than good.
 
Difficult area considering just how many atrocities the soviets committed I think its why they have so little sympathy for their war dead.
Mitch

If you were Russian taking Berlin in 1945 it was an eye for an eye.Revenge was on many a Soviet soldiers mind. They lost more lives than anyone....30 million dead ???
 
In Sicily, both Patton and Montgomery were afforded the opportunity to pin down and destroy substantial German forces, including the entire Herman Goering Division. Instead of engaging, pinning down, and annihilating these forces as they had been ordered, they got caught up in a race for personal glory. When Alexander issued Patton a direct order to stop pushing for Messina and engage the escaping Germans to prevent their escape, the son of a ***** responded that the “orders were garbled”, put his HQ on radio silence, and kept right on going.

Both Patton and Monty bypassed these 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 thousands of Allied Casualties.

The results of this malfeasance were almost immediately felt during the invasion of mainland Italy. The Allies were getting the snot beat out of them in the Salerno beach head. Harold Alexander ordered Monty, who had landed unopposed in Calabria in an unsuccessful diversion operation, to attack north and relieve the Allied Forces in the Beachhead on September 9th. Monty sat on his hands, gossiping with reporters, despite further orders that ‘it is of the utmost importance that you maintain pressure upon the Germans’ on September 10th and a personal visit from Major General John Harding, Alexander's Chief of Staff telling him how critical it was to move to relieve the Forces in the beachhead on September 12th. He made up some excuse about Nazi engineers setting booby traps. There were no Germans, and there were no significant booby traps. Monty didn’t get off his *** and move north until September 15th. Before the Allies broke out of the beachead the US VI Corps took 3,500 casualties, while British 10th Corps on the southern flank lost 5,500. And the Nazis Monty and Patton let escape from Sicily would inflict tens of thousands more casualties before the Italian Campaign was over.

Then there is Patton's little "no prisoners" order to the 45th Thunderbird Division on the dawn of the invasion of Sicily as part of his race with Monty.

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. Several 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.’

When this was reported to Bradley, he ordered that the investigation into the murder of the Axis soldiers be dropped, presumably to protect Patton from the charge of war crimes.

Patton’s ‘take no prisoners’ speech jeopardized the lives of tens of thousands of Allied P.O.W.’s - when you think that the 45th division massacred more German and Italian P.O.W.s than the SS did American G.I.'s at Malmeady, if the news had gotten out, it would have meant open season on all Allied P.O.W.s in German custody.

And that doesn't even take into account Market Garden. We all know the basics. What a lot of people don't know is that the scene in a Bridge too Far with the intelligence briefing of Lieutenant General Frederick Arthur Montague ‘Boy’ Browning really happened.

British Photo Reconaissance (under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Cotton, one of the most interesting characters to come out of WWII, but a relatively unknown hero) briefed Browning’s intelligence officer, Major Brian Urquhart, on the presence of Armor in the area around Arnhem. Urquhart, a good soldier, immediately understood the potential consequences, and briefed Browning on the issue. When Urquhart recommended that Field Marshal Montgomery and General Eisenhower be briefed, so that the problem could be vetted and addressed, Browning categorically denied the recommendation. Browning told them in no uncertain terms that, “two slides would not postpone or derail the greatest airborne operation of all time.”

When Urquhart pressed the issue, Browning said he would have ‘no part in defeatist chatter,’ and refused him permission to raise the issue with SHAEF. Major Urquhart was relieved from his position upon trumped up allegations of ‘battle fatigue’.”

As a result, a lot of good men in the American, British and Polish Airborne forces were sacrificed to Monty, Browning and Patton's vain pursuit of glory.

So no, there competition, in my opinion, caused a lot more harm than good.

ALL true statements....Sad but true.
 
Firstly, thanks CC. some really good discussion topics you have raised

In relation to MG the actual written plan and its objectives guys was sound. The capture of the Ruhr would have without doubt ended the war faster than Pattons drive into germany. That things were not perfect does not mean it should not have proceeded even with the information they had. I certainly believe from everything I have seen and read that XXX corps would have been able to destroy the two SS divisions had they met.

I think looking at the disposition of the 9th and 10th SS divisions they were far from fully equiped and, most of the equipment was railed back to germany or was in the state of being so. The rush to the Arnhem area of german armour bound for elsewhere shows that point.

Its a what if but, I would venture that had the western allies taken Berlin the germans would not have fought so strongly as they did against the russians. There was very little hope (or, less so) surrendering to the russians than the western allied forces
Mitch

Hello to all,

It suffices to say that neither Patton nor Montgomery would have survived over a nano second in the currently extreme P.C. (politically correct) environment that exists in both the United States and British Armies, IMO.

With regard to the soundness (or lack there of) of Montgomery’s concept and planning for Operation Market-Garden, I’m not going to review/reiterate the detailed analysis I have previously presented to this forum during the debate on Great Britain’s most famous general. In due deference and with apologies, it’s not worth the stress or adrenaline expenditure. I’m certain Louis remembers my analysis, as he discussed it at the time. For those who don’t, and are so inclined, you can either read it and/or download it, in excruciating detail, on my blog page; http://www.arnhemjim.blogspot.com. Just click on ‘Operation Market-Garden’ in the top menu bar for openers. Enough said.
Best regards,
Arnhemjim
Arizona Territory (dam—d colonials)
 
Well laid out Louis.

And I wonder if Market Garden had been stopped and the supplies kept going to Patton, the Germans opposite Patton woyld not have had as long a time to regroup and dig in. Perhaps a continued advance by 3rd Army would have kept the Germans off balance , prevented a battle of the Bulge and itself ended the war more quickly. And there is the hypothesis that an American/British Army about to enter Berlin with the Russians just approaching the city may have prompted surrenders in Berlin and a US/Brit occupation.

Terry
 
I think I'm with Rob on this one: won't be drawn in. I wonder how many times this subject has been discussed on this Forum: at least a dozen I reckon :rolleyes2:

As you were....:wink2:
 
Hello to all,

It suffices to say that neither Patton nor Montgomery would have survived over a nano second in the currently extreme P.C. (politically correct) environment that exists in both the United States and British Armies, IMO.

With regard to the soundness (or lack there of) of Montgomery’s concept and planning for Operation Market-Garden, I’m not going to review/reiterate the detailed analysis I have previously presented to this forum during the debate on Great Britain’s most famous general. In due deference and with apologies, it’s not worth the stress or adrenaline expenditure. I’m certain Louis remembers my analysis, as he discussed it at the time. For those who don’t, and are so inclined, you can either read it and/or download it, in excruciating detail, on my blog page; http://www.arnhemjim.blogspot.com. Just click on ‘Operation Market-Garden’ in the top menu bar for openers. Enough said.
Best regards,
Arnhemjim
Arizona Territory (dam—d colonials)

Jim,

I remember it, and I was [and am] very impressed by it. One of the great things about this forum is discussing historical events and figures with very knowledgeable gentlemen like you, UK Reb, Chris, Gary Binder, and so many others. I enjoy the discussions, and learn a lot of interesting information every time the subjects get rehashed. People get a but heated when your opinion differs from theirs about one of their heroes, but for me its all about learning new facts.

Sadly, there is very little discussion about my favorite generals of WWII, Field Marshal Bill Slim, and Lt. General Maurice Rose (KIA in the Ruhr pocket, but up to that time the most successful American Armored Division commander of the war).

Regards,

Louis
 
Monty and Patton - Oy Vey!

I find myself in general agreement with Louis B. for a change. There is nothing wrong with the stimulation from "healthy rivalry" but these boys let it get out of hand. Patton was more open about it but stop and think - a full Field Marshall in charge of an army group let himself be dragged into competition with a Lieutenant General in charge of a single army.

By the way, Louis, Rose was loved by his men, but let's not forget MG John S. Wood, the primary driving force behind the 4th Armored Div. Unfortunately he got so caught up with his division that he had to be relieved after a major blow up with his corps commander right before the Ardennes. The 4th Armored also produced two more of the finest US Armor officers, Bruce Clark and Creighton Abrams. Grow of the 6th Armored Div was quieter but a very productive commander of a hard charging outfit (just not as well known as Patton's other primary armored division, the 4th). Don't forget Ernie Harmon of the 2nd Armored.

Gary B.
 
Monty and Patton - Oy Vey!

I find myself in general agreement with Louis B. for a change. There is nothing wrong with the stimulation from "healthy rivalry" but these boys let it get out of hand. Patton was more open about it but stop and think - a full Field Marshall in charge of an army group let himself be dragged into competition with a Lieutenant General in charge of a single army.

By the way, Louis, Rose was loved by his men, but let's not forget MG John S. Wood, the primary driving force behind the 4th Armored Div. Unfortunately he got so caught up with his division that he had to be relieved after a major blow up with his corps commander right before the Ardennes. The 4th Armored also produced two more of the finest US Armor officers, Bruce Clark and Creighton Abrams. Grow of the 6th Armored Div was quieter but a very productive commander of a hard charging outfit (just not as well known as Patton's other primary armored division, the 4th). Don't forget Ernie Harmon of the 2nd Armored.

Gary B.

My goodness! Gary agrees with me . . . I'll write down the date!^&grin I happen to admire all of the officers you mention, especially Creighton Abrams, but Rose remains my favorite.:wink2:
 
You know, things seem pretty quiet and uneventful so why not post a thread about Patton and Monty!! {sm4}{sm4}

Alright, this isn't meant to be an attack at either man or their respectvie fans. I just watched Patton over the weekend and I got to thinking- did the antagonistic attitudes that these men shared towards one another help the allies?? In other words, did the relentless energy possessed by each man bring out the "best" in the other or make the other man try harder? You see this sort of thing in the workforce or at school where two people who may be naturally competitive are set in the same class/ job etc and try to one up one another and actually better themselves because of all the extra effort.

Could the Allied efforts have been hindered to some degree if these two competitive men were not posted in such close proximity of one another?

Interested in hearing your thoughts.............

Trouble is Chris it always does turn into an attack doesn't it, and I think you probably knew it would. Always negative attacks on people who actually took on the enemy in that War and beat them. So many SBG's its not true.(Sofa bound Generals) The War changing victories these men enjoyed are so easily dismissed and quickly dismissed so the SBG's can get to slating and direspecting men who actually fought for our two countries. The ' selfish Jerks' remark is not only laughable but highly disrespectful to two men who contributed to overall victory. Terry used the term ' Despite their achievements' , this is used in a similar way to the term ' I'm not being funny but....' which implies no disrespect but is full of it.

No one on this forum and I mean no one has any REAL idea what the fighting was like in Normandy or North Africa, SBG's can read every book ever read on the subject but their boots were never on the ground there,have never faced the enemy and have never led men into such fighting as took place in these areas.

It does also appear that anyone who does not agree with post War character assassination of people who were actual Soldiers in this conflict are thought to be hero worshipping, this is quite unfair just because we don't happen to agreee .

The glossing over of the victory at Alamein is what really gets my goat. To be honest I think some may have either a personal dislike of Monty or in what I believe is more common a total disbelief that the one and only Rommel could be beaten by this dapper, small, socially removed man with the odd voice. And this is the point about Monty you either don't realise or wish to ignore, his arrival in the desert when the morale of the British was at an all time low was a major factor in the 8th army believing it not only could beat Rommel but would beat Rommel, whatever resources you have will not be enough if the the guys on the ground do not have the superior morale to win. Mr H Goering learned this in a long summer over southern England if I recall.

We all know both Patton's and Monty's faults and there were plenty of them and both made many mistakes,they were human like every one of us, but if you do not properly acknowledge the victories your argument tends to start to sound like a deliberate bias based on personal ill feeling.

Finally, as you order take away tonight, kick back with a cold beer and hit the plasma tv button, thank god it wasn't you.

Rob
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top