thegeniusmartin said
At Normandie he claimed that it was his plan to "delay" the Germans at Caen! That wasnt true, and in the countr attack in Ardennerna he said that it was he who deafeted the Germans. Thats not true either, it was the yanks and Patton who manage to deafeted the jerrys!
Nice to see you read the article I posted. Not! If you had you would have realised it has dealt with all of your assertions.
Caen was decided as a goal, not an objective, for D-Day. Instructions were issued on the possibility of its capture or not. If it was not to be captured the Allied forces were to take different action. With the presence of 21st Panzer Division Caen was too unrealistic an objective. The reason why the town was so important was that it had strategic value in being a gateway to the Seine, Paris and beyond. Thus, this is where the German forces would concentrate allowing the American forces in the west of France to begin the long encirclement east. Of course, this took a long time to materialise. Furthermore, the failure to take Caen was not a setback as the Monty snipers like to argue. Monty faced the majority of German forces at this time. Indeed, in the American sector in the west the Germans only had 140 tanks available whereas at Caen the Germans had over 700 tanks available. When the Americans were preparing for Operation Cobra Rommel strengthened his forces in the west but the balance remained the same. Montgomery faced the bulk of the German forces and with the limited resources available to the British Army he had to make sure he had the best advantage available. Allied strategy did not fail. They did however fail to anticipate the terrain and the effect it would have on limiting mobile warfare; they also expected the Germans to do the sensible thing and retreat instead of holding every bit of ground as Hitler ordered. This battle of attrition was not dictated by Montgomery but by the unexpected tenacity of the German defenders.
The objective Montgomery was trying to achieve at Caen was to eliminate German offensive power while tying down as much of their forces. This was so the Allies could create the best possible opportunity for Bradley to punch through the German defences in the west or as Monty put it; "all the activities in the eastern flank are designed to help the forces in the west while ensuring a firm bastion is kept in the east." Yes, it was in order to delay the Germans as you put it. Montgomery knew what he was doing.
Operation Goodwood, launched by Monty on the 18th July, was a strategic victory for the Allied forces. Even though the German gun ridge remained all of the objectives were basically met when the operation had to be cancelled on the 20th due to poor weather. Goodwood had exhausted the German armour formations in the area and stopped any from moving west. In addition, two Panzer Divisions that had been ordered to the west were recalled. The objective to pin the majority of German armour around Caen and wear them down was achieved. At the time Von Kluge wrote that, "...the moment has drawn near when this front...will break."
Unfortunately Bradley had to hold his offensive due to a lack of supplies. Eisenhower was furious at them for what he thought was a lack of vigour. Eisenhower did not understand the situation. He was not a combat general. He failed to grasp what Montgomery was trying to do and failed to grasp the supply and weather situations which delayed operations.
Richard Overy summed up the situation very well in his book, Why the Allies Won:
"In the end Eisenhower did nothing to interfere with Montgomery's handling of the situation but the myth took root that Montgomery had failed in Normandy and had to be rescued by go-getting Americans. The truth could not have been more different. The delays to the breakout were unavoidable. Bradley could not punch decisively without supplies; once he was provisioned nothing could be done about the weather. British and Canadian forces fought against the bulk of German armoured divisions in France, against bitter resistance and with a declining rate of reinforcement. But when the breakout finally came, the long weeks of attrition around Caen bore out Montgomery's aims. The victory in Normandy was secured in the grim, unglamorous erosion of German fighting power in June and July."
where is that article, I cannot find it?
Btw, I am grabbing my source (D-Day: The battle for Normandy, Antony Beevor, Publisher: Penquin, I read the Dutch Translated Version) to read some parts about it, because I like the discussion, but cannot remember the whole book :)
But I do remember, and read again now, that Monty had a bad attitude about the situations going on (he said everything was going fine, but it was not) and therefore he was disliked by his colleagues.
'If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!'
- Dutchie
- location: Netherlands
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 400
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
The article is all about convincing people Monty wasn't a bad General, but that he was a man apart. With that I mean that he was someone who did not like the 'weaknesses' of the British Army, unlike many Generals did. So he stood out apart. He was someone different but it doesn't effect any of his victories. That is all. But because he was somewhat different, he wasn't very liked, so after the war he was not so succesfull anymore. I think that is the situation based on facts.
'If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!'
- Dutchie
- location: Netherlands
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 400
Read all three parts, the last two talk about his effects on different parts of the war. (Husky, Overlord, Ardennes etc.)
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
cavetroll1304 said
thegeniusmartin said
cavetroll1304 said
TGM, for coming from a nation whose generals didn't do anything in the war, you sure do like to criticize those that did.
Did you even read the article?
At 1940-1943 it was very smart, in 1943 we broke the military acces treaty and I just wish that we had tried to libberate Norway in 1944!
I am just as afected of the actions of an old man in 1940s as you were by the dead of Olof Palme here in Sweden in 1980s!!!!!!!A. ooo, living it large are we? Sweden was so BA breaking that treaty, meanwhile the allies were actually fighting a real war against the Axis.
B. I don't seem to be affected at all because I've never heard of it.
But you miss my main point, read the article then try to criticize a man who actually did something against one of the greatest evils to rise up during the 20th century.
I can nor change that our president and his government didnt want to fight a nation who hadnt doen us anything. My grandfather and all in his pluton wanted to cros the Norweigen border and helpt Norway, but the was never allowed to.
And over 9000 Swedish troops fought for the allied side under WW II!
Montys best moment (like Rommel) was in Africa! He lead a big number of allied troops in to victory in France but he didnt make a big different on the possitive side.
I dont say that he was a bad general, Im just saying that in France he was never as good in Africa, and he had a VERY strange attitude to the other generals and that he overwhelmed him self in "nice" words that meant that he and only he was the great allied general!
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
Versus the millions that fought (and died) from other countries.
Read the %^@# article.
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
Read D-DAY by Antony Beavor!
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
thegeniusmartin said
Read D-DAY by Antony Beavor!
That is right. I think the article is good to read, but a whole book is even better. It is more into detail, as the article stays more abstract.
'If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!'
- Dutchie
- location: Netherlands
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 400
thegeniusmartin said
Read D-DAY by Antony Beavor!
Get out of your single mindedness that Normandy was the only place that determines how Monty should be viewed. You cant base how someone was from one time in their life.
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
From the end of Italy and forward he act really strange, Cunningham wanted to fire him directly in Normandie before the battle had begun.
He was great in Africa but in France and Germany he acted stange and tooked others credit cause he thought that it had been him who had done the better job in an operation.
And this aint comming from just one book!!!!!
After WW II every one saw him as an old strange man, who was unsocial and wiered! Not just at one moment, but I reapet in Africa he did great.
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
So his credibility as a general is now dependent on how others look at him? That's gotta be the dumbest argument I've heard.
I said from one moment, not one book.
As long as the man is kicking butt and taking names I could care less how he acts.
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
thegeniusmartin said
From the end of Italy and forward he act really strange, Cunningham wanted to fire him directly in Normandie before the battle had begun.
He was great in Africa but in France and Germany he acted stange and tooked others credit cause he thought that it had been him who had done the better job in an operation.
And this aint comming from just one book!!!!!
After WW II every one saw him as an old strange man, who was unsocial and wiered! Not just at one moment, but I reapet in Africa he did great.
This summes things up. And yes, your credibility can depend opun the views of other people, as they were in the same time pretty close to him. Everyone hear does base his opinion upon the writings of historicans and other people who tell you about Monty. They all give some slightly different explenations and even more if they refere to another writer on their own. That will cause many different OPINIONS. Now, there is also such thing as a fact. And there are many facts about Monty. For example, it is documented pretty well how good he was in Africa and all his other victories.
But all those opinons from other generals about monty are too documented. There was communication about the functioning of Monty during the campaign, and not all of it was positive. So there are facts. From these facts we can say with some certainty what monty was for kind of person.
As for the discussion in general. We are talking about the campaign in Normandy right? Not of all the battles Montgomery fought in? Because I do know in Normandy Monty was questionable, as I do not know for other campaigns/battles.
'If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!'
- Dutchie
- location: Netherlands
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 400
cavetroll1304 said
So his credibility as a general is now dependent on how others look at him? That's gotta be the dumbest argument I've heard.
I said from one moment, not one book.
As long as the man is kicking butt and taking names I could care less how he acts.
Monty were a great general, but he wasnt a great general in Fracne and Germany at all! Just enough good to keep the post.
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
thegeniusmartin said
Read D-DAY by Antony Beavor!
Don't. Beevor is completely overrated as a historian and his book on D-Day adds absolutely nothing new to the field of study. He is prone to sensationalism ie his book on Berlin 1945 and even the D-Day one where he says the bombing of Caen was almost like a war crime. Which is silly because something is either a war crime or it isn't and with him being a former army officer he should know that and also not to force the morals of today on to the past.
Carlo D'Este is 100 times the historian Beevor will ever be.
There are many pieces of work out there that give Monty a fair and accurate assessment than what is peddled in popular culture; you just have to look for it. It's unfortunate that people like TGM continue to buy the Monty was crap myth. I have posted the relevant facts but it looks like he has ignored them. Monty wasn't the best but he wasn't the worst. He did a fine job but there are other British generals out there deserving of more attention. Bill Slim, for example.
-snafu- said
thegeniusmartin said
Read D-DAY by Antony Beavor!
There are many pieces of work out there that give Monty a fair and accurate assessment than what is peddled in popular culture; you just have to look for it. It's unfortunate that people like TGM continue to buy the Monty was crap myth. I have posted the relevant facts but it looks like he has ignored them. Monty wasn't the best but he wasn't the worst. He did a fine job but there are other British generals out there deserving of more attention. Bill Slim, for example.
Yep, I'm done trying get him to read it, it's not worth my time.
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
Wait, what are we even talking about anymore?
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
Monty and whether or not he was a good general.
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
Oh god, haveth mercy...
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
cavetroll1304 said
Monty and whether or not he was a good general.
I think that he was a good general, just that he wasnt so good in France and Germany and that he got fired after WW II, and died alone. :(
But you and me can never compare a Allied general with a German general, the German were much better. Of course there were crazy nazi generals but there was some amazing good one. Like Rommel, Manstein, Model, Guderian, Kesserling, Bock, Buch and Kluge!
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987