The ongoing bad mouthing of Montogomery in the American film

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
I just got the dvd of Tom Selleck as IKE.
I was very dissapointed, not to mention, that the film could have been much more about the great acchivements of so many men, and women, on this great undertaking, and the drama of getting ready.

We get mr Selleck, (who's I have nothing agaisnt as an actor), walking arround, and being supposedly what IKE was like.

It was boring IMHO.
But that's not the point, the abysmal treatment that Field Marshall Montgomery gets, in the film is astonishing.

First let me list some of the more nasty slurs on Britains most loved ww2 commander, then, let me give a short analysis on what on earth is wrong with the American media machine and it's constant need to belittle Britains and other Commonwealth countries war effort at the expence of the US war years.

First you see IKE talking about the bomber barons to Churchill, and saying that their way is wrong, and that a landing should be done.

This is completely wrong, the Cossack team had planned the landings from the year 43 onward, IKE and Monty were pulled out of Italy, to get the Cossack team the two best generals that were deemed available at the time.

Slur no 1. Ike's US officer friend says that Montgomery is a Megalomaniac, and a pain in the ass.

Can you imagine a British film saying this about IKE? Infact Montgomery's family could sue for liable on suggesting that Montgomery was mentally unstable.

Hitler was a megalomaniac, just to give some perspective.

Ok, I'll go on with the list, I didnt get all of it, but here are the many insults on Montgomery:

Monty is called IKE's friendly unfriendly.
Monty is like a sergean major when correcting one of IKE's guards uniforms (As if he cared)!

The planning of Overlord is distorted beyond belivef! Monty is seen as trying to overwrite the already done Cossack plans, that he and IKE went to perfect, and made the plans for Overlord. I belive it was Monty's idea to expand the beacheads from three to four, and put one more airbourne div onto the flanks.

But in the film, all of a sudden, Monty is suggesting, attacking Holland, and taking the rhein, and ending the war!
So, in this version, monty is all of a sudden pushing Market Garden, a plan that was hatched only after the German forces fleed France and Belgium.

Patton on the other hand, is ofcourse, 'Brilliant, but...'.
Quite a difference from monty's, 'Megalomaniac and a pain in the ass', isnt it? If anything both were media players in their own way.

The Americans are seen as fighting for the Checks and all the other free nations, funny, I cant remember, America going to war over Poland, or taking Polish volunteers, or Check pilots amongst the other people who fled to Britain to fight Hitler.

Also, IKE silently agree's to Patton's views on the suspicion about a coming showdown with stalin, and the Communists. Very strange from IKE, a man who in reality sent his battle plan's to the STAVKA during the latter part of the war, without asking Marshall, his president, or Churchill, who infact had been the warning bell about the coming Communist intentions about east Europe, at least since, the Warsaw uprising.

IKE's confidants are all American officers, where in history books by Ambrose, Ryan, ect all talk of his constant chat's with Tedder, ect. Again, Overlord was an US, UK and Canadian op, with more British officers in IKE's staff than American, but in the film, he never talks seriously to a single British officer! Only Churchill will do on two occasions.

IKE compare's his hq to McArthurs, which he critisizes, and says 'This isnt McArthurs hq, where... some slur about Corn Cob'.
'We are all running backs' says IKE, funny but Montgomery, seems to be on the bench all the time.

Patton appologises to IKE and promises to keep his mouth shut, there is a warm feeling between the two. Monty on the other hand, who was a good friend of IKE's in North afrika at least, before the media started to 'race' Monty agaisnt Patton, and started the 'silent competition, between the two countries in the publics oppinion, and caused much damage, like when Monty's remark about HIS part in the Bulge, was taken out of context and made to outrage the US, with the famous 'It was one of the most interesting battles I have fought', media slur. But he appologized. And admitted (just like Patton, but this was not shown ofcourse). To saying stupid things sometimes.

Back to the film: Rommell apparently though of Patton as the allies no-1 general.

Funny, for I saw a documentary where an old man who had been in a special force, gathering soil sample's of the Normandy beaches, and was caught.
The infamous Commando order stipulated that such men, could be executed immediately.
He remembered ( he was originally from Hungary, but had changed his name to a British one, and spoke with a perfect british accent), the captor saying with a menacing voice the word: 'Commando', but then a miracle happened! Apparently Rommel was in the area, and wanted to see this man, he was brough in front of Rommel, and guess what Rommell wanted to know?

He asked, how is my friend Montgomery?, and the two men had a bizarre conversation, then Rommell ashured that no harm would come to the man.

So, I wonder, who'm Rommel really considered his no.1 Enemy after all that jazz in north Africa??? well, ike knows best.

Then IKE is talking about the Overlord meeting, and Churchill knows about some of the matters discussed, IKE replies 'I suppose that Monty has been here to tell you'? Suggesting that Monty is a scheeming rat like figure so common in period drama's from the middle ages.

Churchill had daily reports from the British Chief of the Joint chiefs of staff, and I belive that Monty didnt have to do any sneeking for Churchill to be in the know about the coming invasion. Again, insults, dressed as drama.

And again, at the second planning session all the other (for most of the film completely silent) British officers of IKE's staff, agree with the plan, but Monty is on about some version of MARKET GARDEN??? Where on earth did they get that???

Then, Montgomery tries a 'sly trick' by showing an eastern front film, proving that the germans have moved troops away, and they should do a version of Market Garden instead of Overlord.
Now, the fact that Overlord had by now (in real history) been in the planning for over a year, and had both ike and monty working on it for half a year!

IKE's confidant is an American officer, he never talks shop to any British officers during whe whole film (oh, exept the weather guy).

'I loved your crack at Monty's about the French' says IKE to another US officer, conveying a strong dislike of Montgomery and they laugh heartilly, Monty at this time has becom somethign similar to 'Grima the snake tongue' to anybody familiar to the Lord of the Rings books or films.

Then begins the 'let's get ready' part, constantly there is an innuendo, that the Americans are there to do it, and the Brit's are but a nuicance, as perhaps the population of a concuered country.

The, Canadians simply do not exist in the film.

Exept in the end, when waiting for news about how the landings went, IKE say's, 'It's now out of our hands, it's in the hands of a private on Utah, or a corporal on Juno beach'.
No mention of the British beaches, which were the ammount as the US have to land, the same two bloody beaches for the Brit's to get over, close to two thousand British troops died on d-day.
No mention of them.

IKE is seen as having a hyper caring attitude to the combatants, a quality that Montgomery was known to have, but the Americans too often site as a 'weakness'!

An American Gen Miller, get's drunk and blabs about the landings three weeks before the 'show', detais and all.
He has to return to America as a punishment, still as IKE say's goodbye, to a man who made a mistake so great that one can but imagine if the wrong person would have heard it! Still, he get's more sympathy and friendliness from IKE than Monty during the whole film!

then Ike gives a speech where he say's 'there is no inner circle (amongst overlord planners, I presume), only those who live and those who die, well IKE has made it perfectly clear through the film, that Montgomery, has not been invited into his 'non circle'.
In the film, Monty complains about something in EVERY meeting there is!

IKE is seen asking for sitrep's from only US personel through the film, a subtle piece of propaganda.

The IKE comments that the Europeans like war. Well what about the American history since liberty from king george? You count how many wars the US has taken part in, and dont forget the banana wars of the 20's and 30's either!

Then come's one of the most hypocritical lines in the film, IKE with a look of consern on his face, says 'Monty's got Churchill worried'.
What a bunch of bs!

Then come the fears of the American Paratroopers losses, not a single word is said about the British Paratroops, who managed their job slightly better on D-day I might argue, and they stopped the 21 Panzer div, until it took off, to protect Caen!
Not a mention!

When De Gaulle who really is unhelpful and disrispectful (in reality too, both FDR and Churchill had problems with the Gaulle) Demands IKE to take him to his car, IKE act's likea a serveant, and says 'I see let me escort you to your car'.

Now, what ever Montgomery had done, he never get's such a kind word from IKE during the whole discrace of a film!

Then in the company of Royalty, before the great show, is to begin, Monty asks IKE not to smoke, I belive good manners when royalty is present, 'Well ok Monty it's your ground' says, IKE, and when all are seated he lights a cigarrette.

what kind of messages is this film trying to send?

Is this the thanks that Britain has been Americas most faithful ally during and beyond ww2?

This has got to stop! So many young people get into military history because of a good film, or series.

And there is this disturbing Monty bashing that the Americans just cannot let go of.

What if Britain constantly made films where Nimiz is portrayed as a weak minded, self centered martinet, who didnt get anything done anyway, it was the Aussies, and Brits? How would you feel?


AS FOR THE REAL MONTY???
HERE IS A BASIC RECORD
For the record,Montgomery served as a junior infantry officer in ww1, and was wounded twice, (for anybody's information, living through ww1 where junior infantry officers died at a circa 300% turnover rate, that means, that by the end of the war, all the junior officers had been replaced three times)!

Monty got his divison out of France when the nazi's blized it, and the third div, or 'monty's ironsides', got home almost all of them.

Then, he went on to finally crush any hope's of an Afrika Korps dominated middle east in El Alamein, which he predicted on how long it would last correctly!

Then, came the breaking of the Mareth line, a defencive line, that the french in Tunisia had built originnally to keep the Italians, away.
Monty declared he would take it by a certain date, IKE jokingly, said impossible, and the two men had a bet, Monty won it!

The, the allies landed in Cicily, what ever the media tried to put out as a 'competition', perhaps even caught the imagination of the two generals, Monty and Patton, anyway, they came to the end of Cicily on the same day, with the US, two hours earlier, pretty much the same time considering the campaign lasted five weeks and some.

Then, Monty landed in Italy, and his coming from the south, was one factor why the Panzer's giving a hard time at the US, and british landings at Salerno, left for their pre prepared defencive line's in the north.

Then, Monty and IKE both were called to see what Cossack had dreamed up about the Normandy landings.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Monty who insisted that the landing force should be five beaches instead of three, and three para div's instead of two.
I think they were good improvements.

Monty, estimated that the Allied forces would be across the River Seine on D-day plus 90.

And so they were.

Then he made his only real mistake, Market Garden.

After that, he crossed the Rhine in op Varsity, with a grand army, and advanced across northern Germany, where he took the surrender of the new head of teh German state Admiral Dönitz, and kindly arranged for another proper ceremony with Americans, and other dignitaries present, for the signing.

I do not see why this man's career, can be said to be a bad one, and why he is so hated in America, I feel that something to do with the death of the british Empire, and the birth of the American trade empire has something to do with it, the media had to somehow glorify the Amerians, and belittle the brits.

I must say, that as a half Brit, I have almost got used to the ghastly attitude of the US film, and other media's (books), constant attacks on Field Marshall Montgomery, viCount of El Alamein's character.

If the Americans would do the same to Finlands Marshall Mannerheim, there would be many US men in Finnish bars with black eyes, that's how used the Brits are to the whole thing! They dont even notice it anymore! Please dont come up with the same old, 'he didnt take caen when he said he would' or I'll explode!

Yours truth seekingly,

Mr Poundr. :eek:
 

Secret Agent

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
GMU, Fairfax, VA
Country
llUnited States
17poundr said:
<snipped for brevity>

Yours truth seekingly,

Mr Poundr. :eek:
Whether or not he was a good commander, he at least deserves some respect! Look at McClellan! Is he vilified? (No.) If anything, he was waaay more cautious than Montgomery!

Good post.
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
Secret Agent said:
Whether or not he was a good commander, he at least deserves some respect! Look at McClellan! Is he vilified? (No.) If anything, he was waaay more cautious than Montgomery!

Good post.
Yeah! Dont get me wrong, I think that the real IKE was good solid leader, who had to balance many entities.

I just hated that film with Tom Selleck having to play, such a bad script, and wondered, why is it, that such an Anti Monty feeling presides in the US, STILL TODAY? And would the kind citizens of America pause to think that he is a British national hero, I mean the man was Britains hammer of the nazi's!

That's all...
 

Secret Agent

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
530
Reaction score
0
Location
GMU, Fairfax, VA
Country
llUnited States
17poundr said:
Yeah! Dont get me wrong, I think that the real IKE was good solid leader, who had to balance many entities.

I just hated that film with Tom Selleck having to play, such a bad script, and wondered, why is it, that such an Anti Monty feeling presides in the US, STILL TODAY? And would the kind citizens of America pause to think that he is a British national hero, I mean the man was Britains hammer of the nazi's!

That's all...
Every General has his shortfalls. Monty was to cautious (although not as bad as McClellan); Patton was to :censored: , McAurthur criticized the Govt in public, etc. etc. I don't have an 'anti-Monty' feeling! Just Hollywood, I guess...
 

jaegertech

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
129
Reaction score
0
Location
Tampa, Fl
Country
llUnited States
17poundr said:
Yeah! Dont get me wrong, I think that the real IKE was good solid leader, who had to balance many entities.

I just hated that film with Tom Selleck having to play, such a bad script, and wondered, why is it, that such an Anti Monty feeling presides in the US, STILL TODAY? And would the kind citizens of America pause to think that he is a British national hero, I mean the man was Britains hammer of the nazi's!

That's all...
You've stopped to consider this is just a crap movie, right?
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax, Va
Nelson, I don't consider myself a Monty basher. I would rate him as a good, if cautous general. Certainly the best the UK had to offer at the time. But, he was also an arrogant, publicity seeking man (in this regard very simular to his rival Patton). I particularly have problem with him claiming his plan in Normandy all along was to use his British/Canadian forces around Caen as the anchor American forces would wheel around. It was nothing but "spin doctoring".

As to German opinions of allied generals they definately considered Patton as the general they most feared. This opinion was used against the German's when operation Bodyguard/Fortitude reinforced their beliefs with misinformation about Patton's "command" across from Calais.
 

Full Monty

Member
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
760
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Sadly, it seems like another film is on the market which grossly distorts reality in an unnecessary manner.


As to German opinions of allied generals they definately considered Patton as the general they most feared
This statement has come up several times but I can't seem to get to the bottom of where it originates.
 

Leatherneck

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
Location
Ark, US-A
Country
llUnited States
That actor who played Winston Churchill, seem just barely look like him!

Anyway, 17poundr, don't get me wrong that it's true that ALOT AMERICANS either LOVE OR HATE MONTOGOMERY and it just been that way since before D-Day.
 

dannybou

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Well I believe this movie isn't the first one to "bash" Monty as you say. I believe in Saving Private Ryan, in a conversation between Tom Hanks and Ted Danson, he is called "over rated".

In a bridge too far, at the start of the movie, when the German High Command (Model and Von Rundstedt) are discussing where to place the SS Corps, Model is asked who will Eisenhower send for the attack, Montgomery or Patton. Model answers Patton, and Von Rundstedt agrees stating that Eisenhower wouldn't commit Monty, jockingly. So I believe that the Monty bashing started a while back.

My opinion of him? Well I agree with others, that he was arrogant and pompous. It had to be his way. The Canadians paid dearly at the Scheldt because Monty wanted Market Garden to get top priority instead of securing the Scheldt right away after taking Antwerp and isolating the remnants of the 15th German Army.

But he is a British Hero of some sorts. He did beat Rommel at El Alamein, so give credit where credit is due.
 

doomonyou

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
In regards to the movie "Ike" was Charles Degaul (sp)? As big an ass as they protrayed him to be in this movie?
 

danjon

Recruit
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
WIRRAL
Country
ll
Monty was indeed a man with a number of faults, but when he is accused of being to cautious we have to remember that Britain was on its last reserves of Infantry and could not afford heavy casualties, given that we had been at war since 1939!The army we sent to france was a precious thing for the British wereas the Americans could afford the casualties.
It is true that US films have a very interesting take on history!
 

Stage

Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Louis, Mo. USA
Country
llUnited States
A large part of why the WWII generals disliked Montywas because, frankly, Monty wasn't a real likable guy. I've read in several books he was mostly a cold, sometimes downright rude man.
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
dannybou said:
But he is a British Hero of some sorts. He did beat Rommel at El Alamein, so give credit where credit is due.
And cracked the feared Mareth line, when the US/UK forces attacking from the West were pinned down.

I understand your point, but then again somebody threw away so many lives of all the western allied nations at Monte Cassino, and he doesnt get this ongoing critique. It's something psychological almost...
:nervous:

Monty's personal faults as a bad communicator, is another mantra always chanted agaist him.

But what about Patton, bad mannours to the same degree I would say, even if they were different kind of communication problems.

That is not important if you get the job done!
 
Last edited:

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
doomonyou said:
In regards to the movie "Ike" was Charles Degaul (sp)? As big an ass as they protrayed him to be in this movie?
All I know from documented material, is that both FDR and Churchill had very much forgiving to do, to let him become the leader of the free french, they would have preferred someone like Admiral Darlan, but De Gaulle was so ruthless, that he mercylessly got rid of all competition, thus forcing the Anglo/Americans to see him as the leader of the free French.

By the way, Patton, was not considered the best allied commander by almost any German General in thruth, a good one, yes, but the best, no. That was why Patton was used as a decoy, and only let to command, after the hard part was over, was that a desicion made by men who thought of Patton as their no-1 man?

Rommel especially regarded Monty as his nemesis.
And Admiral Döniz, optioned to surrender to Monty, funny from Generals who were supposed to be in awe of Patton...
 

17poundr

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Country
llFinland
OH, AND I forgot, Monty's famous 'Hinge' controvercy, was true enough, It is probably true that the German's were the one's to start the notion, but Monty shure followed up, and there is NO doubt that he didnt help the Americans brake out, when he launched a very little talked of attack, on the day after the initial bombings that all but destroyed the Panzer lehr div, at the first day of Cobra.

For, on the second day, Monty launched a diversionary attack with armoured forces, (British and or Canadian, one thing is shure, he wasnt thinking of his personal glory when he ordered that attack, it was a pretty large armoured op by the way, I just cannot remember it's name right now), anyway, this helped the Americans a lot, for the Germans now didnt know wether the Monty attack, or Cobra was the feint...

Also, the fact that as soon as Monty arrived with IKE into the Cossack planning room, they altered the Cossack plan of a landing by three div's to five, and added one airbourne div to the flanks, these were good desicions, and done by BOTH IKE and Monty together.
And, as for another promice that Monty kept (Appart from Market Garden he delivered every battle right on time, as the winner)!

Was as the commander of the Allied landing force's to have them over the river Seine by D-day plus 90! And it was so, after that or perhaps a bit before, he lost his command of the Americans.

As for the most feared allied general amongst the Germans, I belive It was IKE.

The Patton myth come's largely from the film Patton, which tell's of his character, but the portrayal of German military thinking, is abysmal.

What fooled the german's was the ploy that the allies were landing onto Greece, and Sardinia, and that Cicily was just a diversion.

the same thin about Putting a prominent US General, (who was out of a job at the time, so he was an obvious choise), to head the fake army arround Kent.

Still for some reason Rommel belived the allies would land at Normandy! Funny thinking from a man who belives that patton is the best of the Anglo/American forces.

Also, the film gave undue criticue to gen Spaaz, who is but worshipped by the men that served under him.

And bomber Harris, well, he was a mean so and so, and really let the German populace know what this 'total war' what Hitler had asked the audience at the sportspalaz in Berlin, if they wanted it, and then in 40, the answer was an extatic 'yes, yes'. Then Göbbels had boasted about in previous years, Well nowadays the Germans are a very peace loving people, for Harris shure showed the population what Total War was all about!

Anyway, films are the way that teenagers, and young people learn about ww2, and it's wrong to give falcehood's in historical films, unless it's made clear that the film is a 'artistic view' on the matter.

Saving Private Ryan, got probably Millions of young people interested into ww2 again.

Infact, without Schindlers list, and ryan, there would be only old guy's here on the ww2 pages.

Therefore it's so mystifying that this hatred to somebody seen as Eisenhower is in America, is attacked in these films.

Its propagandist in a way, and it insults the British, remember, that Monty (With the exeption of Market Garden, a gamble that could have worked, if the SS Div's had not appeared right next to Arnhem to rest an refit), won all of his offencive battle's exept the before mentioned MARKET GARDEN, (Oh, and there were US force's involved there, maybe it's their fault that it didnt work! Yeah, blame Gavin, he fumbled Market Garden!) This is the level of some of the anti Monty comments :dead:

And not only did he win them, but he predicted how long the final objective of the Battle would be, and was correct in a strange way, very often. He predicted the outcome of his victory right on time on these occasions. El Alamein (right by the very day), the Braking of the Mareth line (Even won a friendly bet, from IKE), Overlord, estimated goal to be over the Seine by d-day plus 90, and right again.

Op Varsity, right again.

As, for Arnhem, well the fact was that the only Germans seen in Holland for the previous month, had been ragtag retreaters, and Monty desided to act on that, It was very unlucky to get the SS divs there for their re-fitting!

So, in a historical 'what if', the SS div's would have been re-fitting around Köln, Monty would have got accolades, and nobody would have mentioned the estuary business.

And by the way, when Canadians blame Monty for sacrificing their live's, quite often one finds that Brit's wer there too, dying with the Canadians, Royal Marines were clearing the Estuary leading to Antwerp, by the thousand give or take, and casualties were heavy, (as they were in Dieppe).

No, there is something to do with the hangover from the dissovling of the British Empire to do with this on a psychological level, Churchill basically saved western Democracy in Europe, and Monty helped him in it alot, but somehow, he get's all this bad rep, that was fermented by the US press in ww2 I belive and has taken a life of it's own after that.
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
0
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
Secret Agent said:
Whether or not he was a good commander, he at least deserves some respect! Look at McClellan! Is he vilified? (No.) If anything, he was waaay more cautious than Montgomery!

Good post.
Iv'e heard them compared before, what little i know about both, brings a question to mind.

Is it fair to say when the word cautious refers to Monty, it means methodical and attention to detail. With Mclellan cautious has conntations of nervious and undecidedness, as if he knew he was out of his league or something like that. It may also be methodical and attention to detail, but seems he wasn't able to have confidence in the field if the circumstances were anything less, which pretty my renders anyone useless as a field commander, probably a good storeman.
 

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
0
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
17poundr said:
No, there is something to do with the hangover from the dissovling of the British Empire to do with this on a psychological level, Churchill basically saved western Democracy in Europe, and Monty helped him in it alot, but somehow, he get's all this bad rep, that was fermented by the US press in ww2 I belive and has taken a life of it's own after that.

Obviously a touchy subject for you, you seem to know the ins and outs of Monty, is it a special interest you, or is your knowledge of the war just as indepth, across the board?

The above quote, i don't think it is a British thing, hollywood pretty much does it to every non-US character in these things. It must come from somewhere, and goes back to the time of events, maybe it was practice to slur other commmanders and troops to deflect their own critisisms. Maybe, just ignorant arogance. MacArthur certainly said some very very slanderous things about our troops, especially when you consider the intenseness of battle in the area and the achievemnts, some that should be put up there with battlses such as Thermopylae. Towards the end i think he changed his mind about Aussies though.
 

MajorH

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Country
llUnited States
Full Monty said:
Sadly, it seems like another film is on the market which grossly distorts reality in an unnecessary manner.
That pretty much defines American popular movies especially when they deal with things military or political. :) Are popular European films any different?
 

JSMoss

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Location
The Republic of Vermont
Country
llUnited States
17poundr said:
No, there is something to do with the hangover from the dissovling of the British Empire to do with this on a psychological level, Churchill basically saved western Democracy in Europe, and Monty helped him in it alot, but somehow, he get's all this bad rep, that was fermented by the US press in ww2 I belive and has taken a life of it's own after that.

There is some substance to this but more contemporary with the events than today. The Bristish basically approached the war as you would expect an noncontinental colonial power to. Hence their startegy in Europe was focused more on the fringes than on the European heartland. Protec the canal and secure the Mediterranean route to India. They were far more concerned with preserving the Empire and letting the two contintental powers of German and Russia beat each other senseless.What happened on the continent only mattered if it threatened the colonies. The Americans, being a contntental power wanted to land on the continent and march to Berlin. The Americans hated the colonial focus. More than once Admiral King shouted at senior British staff officers that not one American boy would ever be allowed to die to defend the British Empire because it was an abomination that should be disolved as sonn as the war was over. (Ironincall my own Grandfather spent the war in the CBI theater, first mobilizing Indian Divisions and later as part of the American liason team on Mountbattens staff. So there were some Americans working very hard to help preserve the crown jewel of the Empire.)After Italy King threaten to move all the American amphibious assets to the Pacific unless the British agreed to a direct assault on France.

Monty came to symbolize to many of these Americans all the worst aspects of the British Empire. While not a nice person he did not deserve it. He was a safety valve for their anger. Since they couldn't insult Churchill and had to work on a daily basis with the senior British staff officers. It has carried over to today without really understanding the roots.
 
Last edited:

MountainMan

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Rocky Mts, USA
Country
llUnited States
Eisenhower had an enormous problem in coordinating the efforts of major commanders from many nations, all of whom were successful leaders in their own right, and all of whom had developed their own philosophies about how operations should be conducted.

i suppose it was natural for the Americans, particulary Patton, to see Monty - the Brit - as an outsider and a trouble maker because he had different views of what should be the strategy at any given moment.

I think comments about personailty are unfair: the issue for any field commander is effectiveness. A commander's duty is to win against the enemy, not to win popularity concepts. Many Americans, as well, failed to understand the overall laid back and understated British approach to warfare in general.

Monty's problem is that he wasn't lovable, nor was DeGaul. Pattron's problem was that he was a great attack leader, but also a flamboyant egotist whom his men referred to as "Blood and Guts": "His guts, and our blood."

Interestingly, Eisenhower never commanded a major combat group in battle; his skills were entirely administrative and as an excellent negotiator amongst volatile personalities.

I have to agree with the poster: Monty gets a bad shake from historians, not to mention Hollywood, the great creators of alternate history.
 
Top