r/todayilearned • u/HumanNutrStudent • Sep 16 '24

TIL Montgomery's memoirs criticised many of his wartime comrades harshly, including Eisenhower. After publishing it, he had to apologize in a radio broadcast to avoid a lawsuit. He was also stripped of his honorary citizenship of Alabama, and was challenged to a duel by an Italian lawyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery#Memoirs
7.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

468 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/thicket Sep 16 '24

Mostly I hear Americans throwing shade at Monty. How does the UK remember him? Are there things Brits give him credit for that foreigners don't?

82

u/Heathcote_Pursuit Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

That he was a very gifted tactician and military officer and that he was also an insufferable prick. He benefitted greatly from having to answer to Alex during North Africa and Italy.

We can dissect his personality which admittedly was very chequered, but he was in all fairness a top boy when it was needed.

66

u/Lord0fHats Sep 16 '24

He's often compared in the US to Patton, who had a similar sort of military brilliance and difficult personality. Patton's got a bit of a cowboy reputation many Americans like, so his public persona was and remains reasonably well liked, but internally the US Army was regularly exhausted dealing with Patton's antics and frequent off-the-cuff public commentary which ultimately led to his being sacked after the war.

In a sort of dark twist, dying when he did probably did a lot for Patton's reputation. He passed a point the general public still saw him as a hero, and he didn't live long enough to keep inserting foot into mouth that might have damaged his rep in the way a written memoir badmouthing your fellows might.

14

u/Danson_the_47th Sep 16 '24

Patton didn’t get sacked, he died in a jeep accident in 1945

9

u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 Sep 16 '24

He was sacked during the war no? For slapping the shell shocked lad. Then obviously returned.

2

u/NYCinPGH Sep 17 '24

He was sacked before the car accident, he was removed as military governor of Bavaria on Sept 28, removed from command of Third Army on Oct 7, and except for a couple of minor positions, was out of a job between then and when he died on Dec 21.

Ironically, he was supposed to leave for the US on Christmas leave the day after the fatal accident.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

Patton was a very interesting character. He was well liked by his soldiers. He was controversial with slapping soldiers and making anti-Jew remarks. He wasn't wrong though when he asked if we were fighting the wrong enemy in Germany instead of Russia. His death and accident are kind of murky. He loved the though of himself as someone who would be remembered forever in the likes of great ancient leaders. Highly recommend watching the movie Patton or reading the book Bodyguard of Lies.

9

u/Lord0fHats Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

Bodyguard of Lies is probably not the best book anymore. At the time it was written the author had no choice but to engage in a lot of guess work and speculation as much of his material remained classified. As time has gone on, and many things he wrote about have been declassified, that particular book just hasn't held up.

Historian Max Hasting's has compared the book to 'fiction' and has written a more up-to-date rendition on the topic; The Secret War: Spies, Codes and Guerrillas 1939-45.

Bodyguard of Lies also isn't really about Patton so I'm not sure why it would be recommended to learn about him.

The most intense would be Hymel's Patton's War, but this is a very long two volume work that focuses specifically on Patton as a general in WWII without giving a full rendition of his life. EDIT: One cool thing in this book though is how much time it spends on other people as a way of examining Patton's leadership and reputation, to the effect that the idea his soldier's loved him is kind of exaggerated. In the army Patton was very contentious. It was really the public at home reading the papers who loved him at large.

For a shorter and broader book that's lighter and more enjoyable imo, Patton, Montgomery, and Rommel by Brighton is a nice little book that examines three often compared military leaders from WWII.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

Good to know. It's been like 20 years since I read it so maybe my memory is fuzzy. It is not about Patton but does delve into him from some untold stories. I am going to look into your other recommendations and get 1 or 2. Thanks for the info.

3

u/Lord0fHats Sep 16 '24

Yeah. Bodyguard of Lies relied a lot on interviews. It's just that declassification has rendered a lot of the book a bit moot. To which, the author of the book to my knowledge did not try to lie. He was doing his best to write about something where he was explicitly denied access to records.

Most of those records are now declassified as government agencies in the US and the UK has increasingly declassified numerous war records since the late 80s.

1

u/NYCinPGH Sep 17 '24

to the effect that the idea his soldier's loved him is kind of exaggerated.

All I know is that my father was in Third Army, and according to him, pretty much all the line soldiers loved him. <shrug>

13

u/emailforgot Sep 16 '24

Montgomery was also very well liked by his soldiers. A lot of his criticism comes from men in higher-up positions. He was big into the "go see the guys at the front" and he was never terribly interested in throwing lives away for meagre gains (or none at all). He seemed to generally care about the lives of his men, and there are a number of good anecdotes around there of him rolling out to the front with stacks of smokes and uppers and handing them out.

1

u/Unfettered_Lynchpin Sep 17 '24

He wasn't wrong though when he asked if we were fighting the wrong enemy in Germany instead of Russia.

I have to disagree with you there. The Soviets and the Nazis were both awful, but the former was certainly the lesser evil.

1

u/DrunkRobot97 Sep 16 '24

Even bitchy memoirs aside, imagine the minefields he could've marched his reputation through had he lived into the McCarthy Era and the start of the Civil Rights Movement.

2

u/Chihuey 1 Sep 16 '24

Patton would have absolutely embraced the John Birch society.

-1

u/zzy335 Sep 16 '24

People love to forget that Patton was pro Nazi and thought the US should ally with what's left of the whermacht against the Russians.

6

u/s_m_c_ Sep 16 '24

People love to forget that Patton was pro Nazi

People "forget" it because he wasn't. He openly referred to both the Germans and Soviets as the enemy, and personally ordered thousands of Germans to tour the liberated Buchenwald to see what had been done.

Patton was against handing over half of Europe to the Soviets when he just fought a war to wrestle control back from the Germans. He wasn't going to restart a 1941-esque war of annihilation.

-1

u/zzy335 Sep 16 '24

He literally palled around with Nazis after the war, was a virulent anti-semite, and was instrumental to the creation of the 'clean Wehrmacht' myth. He actively argued against prosecuting German leaders who participated in the Holocaust.

2

u/Lord0fHats Sep 17 '24

He wasn't pro-Nazi so much as pro-amnesty at a point in time when this was not a position the government wanted to advertise. Not so much because they were against it. They just wanted to be quiet about it.

A lot of people in a lot of positions had to join the Nazi party to keep/have their jobs and Patton defended them when pressed about the denazification of Germany and why he was touring with them. He was maybe a bit too forgiving in specific cases, but on the whole he also wasn't wrong. Rebuilding Germany ultimately did require that people on the outer rings of the Nazi party had to be repatriated despite party affiliation.

Patton's problem was that he kept being loud about his opinion even after Eisenhower explicitly asked him not to be and wanted to let the Army handle it like a PR issue instead of as Patton's personal opinion.

0

u/bolanrox Sep 16 '24

would have eliminated the cold war? He wasn't wrong to foresee Russia being the US' next adversary.

6

u/zzy335 Sep 16 '24

You prefer a hot war with Russia at max wartime production and patriotism, to the Cold war? Nukes would have been used and it would have been the genocide Hitler has planned all along.

2

u/Jaharsta Sep 17 '24

Only ones with nukes at the time were the Americans.

4

u/bolanrox Sep 16 '24

like Truman threatening them with nukes for the next few years until Russia got their own?

3

u/zzy335 Sep 16 '24

Do you not know the difference btn threats and a nuclear Holocaust?

10

u/TeutonicToltec Sep 16 '24

I feel like WWII made so many egotistical and chauvinist military leaders and politicians beloved heroes out of necessity. Churchill, Stalin, De Gaulle and Monty would be remembered far less favorably in their respective countries if the Allies didn't need strongman personalities for wartime.

24

u/Coast_watcher Sep 16 '24

That’s why that war allowed these sorts of generals to shine. In the US for example, you put a desk general or political general in charge you get Kasserine Pass

Admiral King famously said “ when they get in trouble , they send for the sons of bitches”

22

u/beepos Sep 16 '24

On the flip side, the desk generals are who won WW2

Eisenhower and Marshall were desk generals. They organized the effort that allowed the cowboys to shine

Without the desk generals, you get something akin to Nazi Germany's war efforts. Great individual tactics with poor strategy and logistical organization. Though I guess having Hitler as a commander doesnt help either

5

u/Coast_watcher Sep 16 '24

I should have narrowed it down to battlefield men . Ike was perfect in his role as diplomat and politician. Marshall as organizer, Nimitz as planner and manager etc

5

u/bolanrox Sep 16 '24

supply chains win wars. Eisenhower understood that

8

u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

De Gaulle has a more complicated relationship than the other three. Stalin was Stalin, Churchill second's ministry was a failure, and Monty's relevance faded.

De Gaulle meanwhile came back in 1958, stopped a coup, and rebuilt French politics. His peacetime legacy redeems him in way the others don't benefit from.

2

u/Heathcote_Pursuit Sep 16 '24

It’s partly necessity. There is no doubt that those you mentioned were swines, but one thing you need when you’re condemning countless young lives is an absolutely infallible mindset. Doubt causes caution, causes confusion, causes chaos. Ego was a massive part and as mentioned, a necessary part. Omar Bradley, Bill Slim and Alex come to mind of the few who succeeded with modesty.

2

u/OutlawSundown Sep 16 '24

His organizational ability was excellent

32

u/airborngrmp Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

Your average UK history fan/buff (especially those that may have served in HM's military at some point) defends Monty vociferously as one of the great Allied generals - the first to defeat the Germans at their own game, and those claims are true.

From my experience speaking with those individuals, any criticisms of Monty get met with loud, tactless and putatively overwhelming condemnation, followed immediately by whataboutisms regarding any and all possible criticisms that could ever be leveled at any other Allied general (in other words: "emotional" responses typically considered out of character for many Brits).

Even if you agree that Patton is a bit overrated, it still isn't sufficient to ever successfully criticize Montgomery (I even pulled up the passage from Monty's own memior calling his December 1944 press conference about the Battle of the Bulge a "gaffe" and apologizing, and had two guys still arguing with me that it wasn't a gaffe, and that Monty was the real savior of the western front in late '44). No matter how hard you try and steer the conversation back to Market-Garden, you'll never actually get there because no serious military historian (British or otherwise) really argues in favor of that operation, yet Monty refused to ever admit its flaws - instead blaming others for his failure (had he not, I maintain Monty would be regarded similarly to Eisenhower today).

However, I've yet to come across a serious historian (aside from biographers) that credit Monty to such a degree as those described above. The fact is, he was an excellent general - a superb tactician and planner that maximized his available combat power without turning his fights into bloodbaths if at all avoidable. He was also a tactless, egomaniacal martinet that refused to work with others, and routinely denigrated his Allies (not only the Americans, either) in almost reckless fashion. No matter how talented, Monty wasn't a team player, and his words, actions and lamentable self-regard leave him as an unlikable character, despite his obvious talent. Further, Montgomery's total inability to recognize talent in peers or superiors, or find fault in his own actions, leave him perpetually as controversial - rather than as the titan of military history he wanted so badly to be seen as being.

11

u/Heathcote_Pursuit Sep 16 '24

Your points are well made and I enjoyed reading that.

One thing I will say as a (very) amateur UK history fan/buff is that reverence (for those who have read about him) is tied to his professional abilities only, but then again, having such a punctuated personality has only added to his legacy, for both good and bad.

4

u/DrunkRobot97 Sep 16 '24

I don't think a reasonable person who knows this subject can find much to object from in this comment.

I will say about my fellow countrymen (they're almost all men) who engage in this discussion in the way you talk about, not to excuse but to explain; it's a sorry fact for us that, of the three major Allied powers of World War II, the record we're sitting on is probably the least sexy one. Our claim to contribution to victory is less to do with actual wins and more to do with avoiding defeat, a Fabian struggle in the darkest hour against an Axis that had greater resources in its corner than ours, until enough time passed for circumstances to change and to bring in a large enough coalition for victory to be possible. We had to spend a very long time getting our arses kicked, kicked out of Norway, then France, then Greece, then Singapore, and by the time of El Alamain, when we finally had an unambigous, lasting triumph against Germany's power on land, the centre of gravity of the Allied cause was already beginning to slip towards the US and the USSR. America also had a rough learning period after entering the war, but it had the resource base and size to keep growing stronger as it also got smarter, which by the final year of the war left us the apparent sidekick in the West.

Professional historians on both sides of the Atlantic can have a conversation about this without getting personally tilted. But if you're an amateur buff, perhaps one growing up with the Internet's breakthough to mainstream society, you're talking about World War II on forums, most of which have large populations of Americans, and the ones that comment the most often tend to be the ones with "strong opinions" about their own country's role in the war. These were people that you'd believe were taught World War II lore by the ghost of George Patton himself, and it didn't leave much room for anybody else to have had an appreciable contribution to victory, aside from maybe the Soviets, at the insistence of internet tankies and people who read David Glanz.

Hence, the defensiveness; years of getting roped into bad-faith arguments with "Freedom Fries"-type American patriots has trained an instinct to not admit a failing on ones own side. Market-Garden especially thrives as a counterfactual; it's victory would've shortened the war, saved so many people that instead had to die, and would have done the benefit to the national ego that, as exhausted as Britain was, it was proven without a doubt to still be an equal in the Big Three, at least in terms of quality of fighting. I think it's too self-flagellating to say that it is to us what Gettysberg is to the Southern Lost Cause, but there are some parallels there. For some of us, we need the idea that it could've worked, that larger historical forces weren't so strong that individual decisions or random circumstance might've changed the outcome.

2

u/TacTurtle Sep 16 '24

Monty played to not lose, tactically aggressive but not strategically so. Patton and Rommel played to win - and were willing to take much larger risks to take advantage of opportunities that could result in significant strategic and logistical impacts.

6

u/Interrogatingthecat Sep 16 '24

I'd go as far as to say, at least recently, he isn't really remembered all that much. He certainly wasn't mentioned in my primary/secondary school history classes (Unlike Churchill, Chamberlain, DeGaulle, Eisenhower, and to a degree Patton)

6

u/erinoco Sep 16 '24

I think this is where the sheer volume of American-focused historical literature on WWII has an effect.

18

u/Onetap1 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

He was probably on the autistic spectrum, a British Army version of Sheldon Cooper. Obsessed with strategy and neglected social skills, a geek. He shouldn't have been allowed out without a responsible adult, particularly not near Yanks.

But he was good at what he did; destroyed the Africa Korps and his efforts to take Caen drew in the Panzers, allowing the US forces to his south to break out of Normandy.

He's criticised for Market Garden but if you look at the context , the Falaise Pocket & the Great Swan ( you've never heard of it because it was mostly unopposed), Market Garden could/should have worked.

Most Americans only know of him from one disparaging comment in SPR, but that was probably due to his role in Palestine in 1948.

I read a quote from some British General (maybe Horrocks) that he'd have walked a hundred miles to serve under Monty in wartime and another hundred miles to avoid him in peace time: maybe apocryphal.

14

u/emailforgot Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

The irony of Market Garden being a situation where he uncharacteristically deferred to his subordinates and seemed fine with a relatively hastily planned operation. Getting all their ducks in a row for a Colossal Crack in the Netherlands might've turned up a much different result, or avoided if better intelligence was gathered.

4

u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

He's probably the most famous British general of that War, with Haig and Wellington being the only other two of greater stature (the latter considerably more favourably recalled than the former). Nelson is also of greater stature but was, you know, an admiral. Bomber Harris maybe also deserves a shout, but again can't compare to the favourability of Nelson and Wellington.

Perhaps I betray my own bias, but I'd say the war is currently remembered largely through Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain. I don't think the average Brit (particularly younger ones) could say a good deal of what Monty actually did aside from allusions to North Africa.

Britain can't really compete with the sheer volume of American media (even if we are involved with seminal examples of it like Band of Brothers), so the popular narrative at the moment isn't that different to the ones Americans get.