Talk:Bernard Montgomery

Character and controversy

The two sections "Character and controversy" and "Assessment of Montgomery as a military commander" both have far too much unsourced opinion in them. "It is helpful to analyse Montgomery's generalship by looking at some central aspects of his successes and failures" is completely inappropriate. It is not our job to analyse, our job is to summarise from reliable secondary sources. These sections should be fixed or removed. Rees11 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet it is the major part of the continuing interest in the man and his life. His very character flaws documented in a number of biographies are what still arouse such passionate points of view compared to most of his contemporaries. Ignoring this aspect of his life and career would diminish the value of the whole article immeasurably. Dabbler (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed the point. I think what Rees11 was trying to say in a polite way that there's just too much armchair POV here. The discussion on his character should not be ignored but a balanced summary given with citations to appropriate books - which is the Wikipedia way. Elaborating a conclusion in the article when there are clearly two unreconciled sides to the argument, however, is POV and not the Wikipedia way. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I would welcome a spirited critique of the man, but it should come from sources, not from WP editors. I even added a criticism of my own, the part about the Montgomery cocktail (15:1), but you'll notice it's properly sourced. Rees11 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rees11, but the fact that this article lacks a concise summary of Montgomery's tactical ability and leadership means that the average reader cannot fully appreciate Monty's tactical ability. The problem here is finding adequate sources. Almost all his fellow officers hated him, and their correspondences reflect these petty grievances, especially in the case of General Patton. On the other side we have Monty's own correspondence that sounds like he marched into Berlin and shot Hilter personally. And the subsequent commentary seems to fall into those categories. What is needed is an objective assessment of the man, but I've yet to find something. KwaggaDan (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like someone would have written an objective assessment of the man, but I haven't found one either. In the absence of a single reliable source, I would settle for summaries from two sources, one on each side. But I want them from historians, not from primary sources like letters from Monty or his officers. Or worse, opinions of WP editors, which is what we had before I removed it. Rees11 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done some research, and Breaver in his book "D Day" has a fairly negative summary of Montgomery in the conclusion. Saldy I have found nothing to his benefit that wasn't authored by Monty or his staff. 41.247.160.162 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be nothing wrong with quoting the writings of members of his staff, after all they were the ones who saw Montgomery close up and were able to work with him. If they depict him in a positive light, perhaps they had reasons to do so which were not so apparent to people viewing him from a greater distance. A critical reading should show whether the material is puff and flattery or a reasoned assessment from someone who worked closely with the man. Dabbler (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the refs for the "positive" section were from Dixon, On the Psychology of Military Incompetence. The title doesn't sound promising but maybe there is some good material there. Anyone have a copy? Rees11 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I think on the whole the article is fairly well-balanced as regards criticisms of Montgomery. One of the most noticeable aspects of Montgomery's life is that he appears to be someone that others 'love to hate' This seems to be based almost entirely on his personality, the criticisms of his military performance almost always seem to be based on either a misunderstanding of the circumstances at the time or just plain misleading statements made by people who had personal axes to grind.

• In Eisenhower's Lieutenants, historian Russell F. Weigley offers this criticism of Montgomery as a strategist:

• Field Marshal Montgomery almost never paid so much as lip service to the dictum that the destruction of the enemy forces is the object of military strategy. ... Montgomery's aggressiveness was that of the energetic fencer, not that of the general who annihilates enemy armies, of Napoleon, of Grant, or of Moltke.[115]

That doesn't seem to apply to the operation around Caen. "By the end of June, Rommel had concentrated seven panzer divisions against Monty’s British Sector. One was all the enemy could spare for the US front. Omar Bradley." Most of these SS panzer Divisions wouldn't agree with Montgomery being 'not that of the general who annihilates enemy armies'. You could also try telling that to the British and Canadian personnel involved. It doesn't help when you're facing tanks that outclass your own so that you can rely on losing the first two or three tanks in a column (sometimes more) before getting close enough to fire back.

• A 1984 Encyclopedia Britannica article sums up Montgomery's generalship in ambiguous terms, reflecting both the perception of his 'over-cautious' approach, but also his reputation for leadership and popularity as a 'soldier's general':

• A cautious, thorough strategist, Montgomery largely eschewed military innovation. Instead he insisted on complete readiness of both men and material before attempting a strike, a policy that exasperated his superiors, but produced several successes in battle, and his ensured popularity with the men.[116]

'largely eschewed military innovation' - well it was Montgomery who was responsible for the large-scale use of deception at El Alamein. He was also an eager advocate of The Funnies, the 79th Armoured Division. If THAT doesn't count as "military innovation" then nothing does.

'instead he insisted on complete readiness of both men and material before attempting a strike' I would have thought that that was simple common sense. One wasn't fighting a second-rate army that could be caught off-guard that easily, the German opposition were one of the best armies in the world at the time, and they didn't 'fall to pieces' when the going got tough like certain other ones I can mention.

I'm no great fan of Montgomery (it's ancient history to me, and I couldn't care less) but it has always struck me that so much of the criticism of him is based purely on personal dislike, the military criticism almost always seems to be based on either ignorance of the facts or just plain falsehoods. A lot of the criticism seems to be coming from military people who never faced anything other than a small (albeit still potent) proportion of the German armies in the West. The fact is that almost ALL of the Wermacht and Waffen SS Divisions after Normandy were fighting the British and Canadians, the greater (and most powerful) part of the German armies in the West. The critics were for the most part facing considerably weaker forces, and it's almost laughable to hear how they would have 'pushed aside' the German forces facing the British and Canadians. The truth is, they would have been annihilated. If I have 7 of the best panzer divisions facing me and you have only 1 facing you, and you then accuse me of being 'slow' my first reaction would be to laugh. I'd then think you a bloody-fool.

I suspect that a lot of the bad feeling against Montgomery stems from the Battle of the Bulge, when Eisenhower placed him in charge of recovering the situation and then SHAEF forgot to tell the Press of the fact - there was very little time in-which to act, so its perhaps understandable they forgot. After a press conference in which Montgomery told them how HE was commanding the forces involved, many US critics thought that Montgomery was lying, whereas he was actually telling them the truth.

I think that the question of Montgomery's reputation illustrates well the problem of judging the veracity of critics, whether their criticisms are valid or not. One of the most noticeable things about his most ardent critics is that so many of them appear to be speaking from positions of ignorance, either due to relying on simple errors of fact or reporting, or through lack of experience leading to a misunderstanding of the (sometimes complex) situation at the time. A lot of them simply don't know what they are talking about.

As a final aside, I suspect that what many of Montgomery's critics found most galling was that he simply did not care what they thought of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.93 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. The discussion here should be about which sources, on both sides of the question, are most reliable, and what information to include in the article. I'm inclined to remove all the unsourced stuff from the criticism sections. Rees11 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's up to you. What I was trying to point out was the many of the so-called 'expert' critics were talking out of their arses, either through ignorance, or in worst cases, through an attempt to deliberately mislead. At best, many display a wilful misunderstanding of the facts. A section on criticisms is fine as long as Wiki pages on other military commanders have equivalent (and equally critical) sections. I suspect I'll have a long wait before that happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.93 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with just removing the sections too. Rees11 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does not seem balanced to me. It doesn't even mention Market Garden until the end, and then only briefly. Competence with the advantage is not greatness. Montgomery cannot be called a brilliant strategist in any of his battles and he was a bit of plodder in them all. Did he do anything to shorten the war? Market Garden (as the article states) prolonged the war. It must be said that a broad front strategy is what Ike wanted, but this article is too kind to this general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating....I look forward to reading your forthcoming book on the subject. However, this POV stuff has no place in this document! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'd pulp it :). I'd like to see whether he actually associated his name to his (or her) book instead of the usual anonymity. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment and Character

As no one has really defended them, I have removed the Assessment and Character sections. There was some good stuff there and I would welcome having it added back in. When I say "good," I mean well sourced, balanced, and not drawing a conclusion. Rees11 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

New Zealanders

"By the time the offensive was ready in late October, Eighth Army had 231,000 men on its ration strength[71] including British, Australian, South African, Indian, Greek and Free French units."

The Second New Zealand division is mentioned by Winston Churchill in his "The Second World War" and also in Wikipedia's article on El Alamein. Cwelgo (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy and Paste

i was doing some reserch on Monty and noticed this page had pretty much the same words writen... http://www.jackbacon.com/products/product_printpage.asp?PDID=101... something needs to changed here. i dont know who jacked who, but originality is necessary.