This video is ridiculous. You paint Montgomery as some misunderstood genius who only rubbed people the wrong way but was always right as you crap all over the American generals as only a Brit would. Ive read Montys book. He is media obsessed. He cares nothing for the ideas of others and actively undermined his superiors, subordinates and peers claiming credit for the work of others time and time again. You claim Bradley wanted the limelight? Are you daft? Thats clearly false and you give no proof of your ascertation whatsoever. Bradley liked the limelight least of all. Montgomery was furious about Patton taking Messina because he wanted the limelight and accolades. He went on and on about it claiming he should have been allowed to take it first. When he went behind Bradleys back about Market Garden he should have been relieved not rewarded. If Ike hadn't been so obsessed with maintaining Churchills good graces he probably would have. Market Garden was stupid and Monty took great pains to ignore and supress any intel that painted the German troops in the region as anything other than old men and kids. There are reems of evidence to that effect. The signs were all there but he wanted the glory of crossing the Rhine first. As to Caen, he sent commonwealth troops to slaughter and ignored his subordinates who begged him to listen to them and allow them to attack the flanks or fix then bypass it to cut off their supplies. Caen didnt need to go down that way. He wanted the glory of taking Caen and couldnt be dissuaded. It didnt take 6 weeks because he was whittling down the Germans. It took 6 weeks because he insisted on idiotic frontal assaults against dug in forces holding superior positions with excellent fields of fire. He only dressed it up as attrition warfare later as if losing tanks and troops in a mindless slugfest was the only way to win. Patton bypassed German troops endangering their flanks which forced them to withdraw and eventually rout. He then destroyed them in good order taking far fewer casualties. Monty objected to Pattons plan. He didnt support it. Had Montgomery done the same he would have made the German positiom untenable and they'd have had to withdraw becoming easier to handle elsewhere where they didnt have positional advantage. Caen was wasteful but he didnt care because they werent British troops. Monty was not some genius commander. He attacked only when he thought he had a massive advantage or when he believed he could make a bigger splash than Patton or Bradley and he politicked behind the backs of his peers and his superiors at every opportunity. You blame others for the fractuous nature of the alliance but he was the biggest cause of these fractures. Patton had Montys number just right, Monty was a snake and a primadonna obsessed with his own image and willing to throw everyone else under the bus if he could make a big splash in the papers.

Patton rushed forward & his troops did war crimes against the local Italian civilians. Montgomery was not autistic but an Englishmen. Yanks trying to think like a Limey is like a cats thoughts vs a octopus thoughts. Montgomery didn't underestimate the USA but knew their nature & tendencies better then they knew themselves. Typical fashion Montgomery mistook Patton & the USA as soldiers thinking they would follow ''orders'' but that never happens with yanks as they do as please being a Hollywood trope like cowboys or an action man. Montgomery was not seeking fame like Patton or any USA General inflecting on Britain what they did but Montgomery was carrying out his job & damn appearances or sentiment as that is not the role or position of a man in commissioned service. Montgomery greatest only mistake was for thinking USA troops were a professional standing army but really they were militia armed with everything under the sun. Why yanks are as dangerous to themselves as the enemy as friendly fire statistic have shown. My father to my Great grand father would always say roughly ''any front with Yanks is of more danger then any enemy'' it is like watching a force of nature as if a storm rather then well ordered machine like the Germans. America's Greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness like a double edged sword for they have no idea what they are doing with no clear orders so the enemy has no idea what the USA is doing. The USA is very unconventional militarily & no other nation could afford such a method of attack with chaos & supremacy of firepower throwing money at any problem.

I clicked it but i just got a regular install

Cause Monty a Brit used the allies (ANZAC’S) mainly & resources that he had making a plan that would work. By doing this he done what the yanks said couldnt be done he beat the desert fox rommel in the desert where the yanks couldnt get a break

Both Generals O'Connor and Auchinleck won in the Desert with a lot less men and material - monty got thrown out of Europe before. Pay attention school is in session EVERYTHING was already in place to win in the desert. Montgomery had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any of the actions below. He reaped the benefits of them and others who came before. The the brandy soaked Churchill removed the wrong guy and stuck with a mistake rather than dare admit he made one. *Churchill wrongly removed General Auchinleck who argued that his men had not regrouped and needed reinforcing. Several military analysts accused Churchill of misunderstanding desert warfare tactics, saying he placed too much emphasis on territorial occupation Auchileck/Dorman-Smith stated they needed 6 weeks to refit,reinforce and resupply. Made perfect sense attrition on men and materiel took it's toll. So what does Monty do - took 10 weeks(Aug-13-Oct 23) to advance​ - much more time than Auchileck and Dorman Smith insisted on and got fired for in the 1st place.* 🔶The Torch Landings - forces included 60,000 troops in Morocco, 15,000 in Tunisia, and 50,000 in Algeria. Claude Auchinleck called over two fresh divisions from the Nile Delta after winning 1st alamein.Both of these troop deployments forced Rommel's hand as now there would be more enemy troops to deal with. And he wasn't getting either reinforced or resupplied 🔶Monty didn't defeat Rommel in Africa. The British Navy did by starving Rommel of resources. 🔶Monty didn't build up the arms/men/tanks/materiel - the allies did -Dorman-Smith had engineers and infantry plant the massive mine field on the Alam Halfa ridge , that Bernard attempted to take credit for. 🔶ULTRA became fully operational in August 1942 after the Germans had changed some wheels/gears on Enigma 🔶The RAF and Royal Navy completely strangled the Afrika Korps supply lines. Sweeping the skies and seas in/over the Mediterranean 🔶Montgomery had 1500 miles and every conceivable advantage - BIG ADVANTAGES in men/materiel/air cover/intelligence/tanks/artillery and still Montgomery never captured Rommel 🔶Mongomery never opened ports or captured Air Strips for them in return this would continue into Sicily and Normandy where Monty's deficiencies would be exposed - Rommel in his memoirs credited complete Air superiority by Conningham's RAF that they could hardly sleep in the heat and battle of the day and could only move at nite 🔶 *Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts p.282-83 On 12 September 1942 Churchill had cause to thank Roosevelt telling him the 317 Sherman tanks and 94 self propelled 105 mm guns "which you kindly gave me on that dark Tobruk day in Washington" and arrived safetly in Egypt and been received with the greatest enthusiasm - as these tanks were taken from the hands of the American Army*

That's a good one!

I knew an australian company commander who reminisced how montgomery insisted 8th Army officers did five mile runs daily in the lead up to Alamein. His judgement was that the time would have been better spent planning than being wasted on basic training carry on. I should point out that he had fair reason for that judgement, his company took 60% losses attempting to cut the coastal road to draw off the panzer reserve to allow the breakout. The brit armour supporting them turned up late and stayed hull down out of range, their integral AT guns, Mortars and Vickers guns were held up on the minefields, and the battalion's closest support was near a thousand yards away...the only thing that saved them was the germans and italians let them carry out their wounded after the two forward companies were overrun by panzers.

@@Desdichado-vs8ls That I agree with. He really never got out of the trenches of WW1. Coincidentally, one of Rommel's desert staff officers observed that Rommel was still the junior officer who fought and won his fame in italy in WW1. The reality for Rommel was that by british standards, he did show outstanding generalship, but by germam standards he was average, and was propped up in the desert by a staff picked for him specifically to strengthen his weaknesses...Rommel was never selected for general staff training, which is a fair indicator of his professional standing. He was lucky he was a hitler favourite, which makes the british hero worship of him rather tasteless. The brits have always shied away from confronting the issue of Rommel's and DAK's support for the einsatzgruppe operating in their rear area.

That’s awesome hahaha

@@yyy-875 Lol you’re probably right about that.

Criminally underrated comment.

Him knowing when and how to use Monty, Patton, and Bradley, among many others with fewer stars, is why I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.

Yeah especially since he never had frontline action some wouldn't respect him as much. I believe he was mainly a logistician so some would question if he knew what he was doing. He didn't just have to deal with certain generals egos, but the competition between American and British generals. Look at the invasion of Sicily, the race between patton and Montgomery.

Eisenhower is sometimes derided for not being a battlefield general, and there is some limited justice in saying so. But Eisenhower did so incredibly well in the political aspects of being a general, that for that specific aspect of being a general, he is probably the best in the history of the world.

That's why he went from a Colonel to General of the Army in three years. Patton outranked Eisenhower at the beginning of the war. General Marshall (then Chief of Staff of the United States Army) had worked with Eisenhower in the past and knew him to be a diplomatic man and excellent judge of character. When the time came for an American General to work alongside and coordinate with allies, Marshall knew who to send. General Marshall is criminally underrated in history, in my humble opinion.

so your grandpa met them both..what a lucky man

@@johndawes9337 Meeting both would mean you were in the centre of war. Lucky would be meeting neither and being nowhere near war.

Monty was only condescending to incompetent officers. He got on well with competent officers, “Lightning Joe” Collins for a start. Thing was, there were an awful number of incompetent officers.

if that was true bernard would have been removed for yelling at himself. He should have been removed as he was the least essential, a positive impediment and a malevolent drag on American operations. Couldn't cross his crummy little channel until riding the GIs coattails. The Poor tommies deserved better

so monty looked down on himself then? When the odds were even Gerry drove brooke and Bernard into the the channel.That they didn't cross for 4 FULL YEARS - thanx to the GIs. If he was a Patton or Zhukov he wouldn't have RUNAWAY into the desert. Cross the channel and ask the Euros - they saw it

There's a story that Truman was in a conversation and Wake Island came up, which was where he had a meeting with MacArthur. Truman's comment was "Ah, Wake Island. That's where I met God." Quite similar to the anecdote about Monty, Churchill and King George.

A little known fact is that MacArthur was actually forbidden from travelling on board any vessel smaller than a battleship. This is due to the fact that the overwhelming weight of his ego would cause any smaller ship to begin to sink.

To my knowledge Patton and MacArthur got on very well if I’m remembering correctly they were in the same class at West Point and worked directly with each other in WWI

Some guy on Drachinifel's video on Admiral King joked about putting Monty, MacArthur, Beatty, Patton and King together in a lfe raft and you're stuck with them. For the sake of the scene, everyone has the same rank : Flag Officer. One replied they'd rather their chance in the water because too many egos. Another joked about shooting being on the table. Beatty and MacArthur end up with two bullets each, Patton and Monty one, and you'd en up with a slighty less angry King. Then a third added LeMay and Halsey into the mix... Which prompted a fourth to say that Halsey would somehow find a way to sail them into a typhoon.

@@spirz4557 Imagine a round table with MacArthur, Montgomery, Patton, De Gaulle, and Mark Clark.

lol, that about sums him up.

I give everyone an even shake, but 40 years of reading WWII history books has led me to one conclusion: Monty was an overrated stooge propped up for PR purposes.

@@andrewdavid5928 Well its an opinion I suppose. Shame you wasted 40 years, but that's life.

@@onastick2411 Brits have always been an inbred lot of crown kissers and knee benders.

​@onastick2411 A marginally competent, narcissistic prima donna. Whose lack of action and failures, probably prolonged the war by at least six months. In the end, no better than De Gaulle.

Excellent suggestion. I have heard good things about his service but know next to nothing about him.

And he took troops that had been badly whipped by the Japanese and turned them into winners.

It's all opinion who was the best. Different theatres, different enemies. There is no question, however, that Montgomery was the most successful. He took more ground through more countries winning more battles while facing more quality enemy units than any other.

Even many of the British resented him for taking all of the credit for Al-Alemaine, when in fact the Royal Air Force played a key role, without which victory would not have been possible. He didn't even mention them. Moreover, the Americans were not the only ones that resented his high handedness. If you think Patton resented him, he ignited incandescent rage in General DeGaulle, for whom Monty had little regard and didn't have enough sense to even pretend to respect him. It led to chilly relations between DeGaulle and Britain's chilly relations, and contributed to the French decision not to integrate their forces directly into NATO after the war.

@@jacqueslefave4296 1. Who told you Montgomery never mentioned the Royal Air Force? 2. Who cares about DeGaulle? Even Eisenhower couldn't stand DeGaulle.

That line just makes me respect Eisenhower so much. I don't believe he would have said anything like that to Pattern. Just Monty as he knew Monty didn't understand social ques, fantastic diplomat wearing generals stars. As someone who has dealt with people who are on the spectrum it's the best way to deal with them, don't yell just politely tell them to stop and they do so.

Pore ol’ Kikenhower “The Terrible Swedish Jew”

Just a shame Eisenhower too Montgomery's job of C-in-C of all ground forces in September 1944 and then prolonged the war with his broad front strategy and decided to waste massive amounts of men and material in secondary campaigns such as the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace instead of concentrating his armies in the north.

The amusement continues lyndon monty had 4 yrs to cross a channel as the GIs came 3500 miles to prop up the ankle biter, you people kept talking about Metz. WOW. An operation the British simply could not have undertook. Let alone complete. You lumps would have been carved up like the Christmas goose only he had more brains The tainted waif Bernard not showing up at all for his Monty Garden debacle that everyone else fought at. Then sending an armored column down one elevated road with no room for maneuver surrounded by marsh and drainage ditches. Even the Dutch advisors and underground warned the ass. But he was probably back at the caravan safe/sound and giving you THE FULL MONTY. And the British sent no help to that battle like the two US AB Divisions sent to help Monty - Plus all of the hardware and fuel. But they probably couldn't as he got them eviscerated just like CAEN Plus all of the hardware and fuel *Do the math not the meth The Lorraine campaign lasted from 1 September to 16 December 1944 - 6,657 were killed over 3 months and they took 75,000 German PoWs, compare that with 17,000 casualties at Market Garden in just 9 days (which was more than the invasion of Normandy) including nearly 2,000 Brits and Poles killed before taking the American killed into account. Market Garden had nearly 3 times the casualties per day* Op Queen and the Hurtgen Forest battles (of which Queen was part) were costly failures, also, but the same argument applies - the period was far longer and the average losses less together with much higher Axis casualties and PoWs and they do not turn Market Garden into a success. Monty and Market Garden were failures.

@@lyndoncmp5751 To be fair, we say that with hindsight. Looking at the information Eisenhower in the moment he just didn't know the state of German forces like we do now, that show the Narrow Front strategy would've been much more effective. Not to mention Eisenhower also had to appease de Gaulle and other parts of politics, which the Broad Front did. In short? Yes the Narrow Front was the better proposition in hindsight. But we have to stress the "in hindsight" part. Ike made a fair choice with the information he had, in the situation he was in.

That was exactly his job .. Supreme allied commander .. not American.. or anyone else.. Allied. I don't thinking anyone else could have done it half as well. He had to fight a war against the enemy and a battle against his commanders. He succeeded. uh-rah, I don't pity him.. but i couldnt do it. Credit where it's due eh ?

A curious analogy to use, as Eisenhower was well known as a cat-hater. He even had his groundskeepers kill them if they found them on his property. (I suspect it's because he knew cats were connected to the alien greys! LOL)

He had the rare skill of being able to get along with basically everybody and get them to work on a single project. People like Monty and Patton couldn't even agree on the time of day or the weather, so getting them to even vaguely work together when fighting the Germans was a miracle.

Imagine: Ducttape hadn't been invented yet, and Eisenhower had the mouths of both the moronic Patton and Montgomery to contend with.

Actually, duck tape had been created in the 1930s. That said, Ike would have needed a case or two of it every month.

Underrated comment

@@TheIntelReport Truly. However, I think that doctrine was flawed. The way to win is to.... if I might quote Heinlein... "We are the boys who will go to a particular place, at H-hour, occupy a designated terrain, stand on it, dig the enemy out of their holes, force them then and there to surrender or die. We're the bloody infantry, the doughboy, the duck foot, the foot soldier who goes where the enemy is and takes them on in person. We've been doing it, with changes in weapons but very little change in our trade, at least since the time five thousand years ago when the foot sloggers of Sargon the Great forced the Sumerians to cry Uncle." That's how you win wars. You Go to where they are and make them cry uncle.

With the huge resources available Patton in men and armour he could afford to make assaults that were costly in men and materials, Monty however used the limited resources he had as efficiently and effectively as possible, just a clash of personalities that's all.

Monty was irrevocably shaped by his experiences in WWI which demonstrated to him that the only way forward was a detailed, coordinated and meticulous combined arms effort. Patton saw much less than a year of combat in WW1 - much of this during the 100 days which led him to believe in aggression and the attack to keep the enemy off balance and to work inside their OODA loop. I'd personally say that their approaches were irrevocably shaped by this difference of experience and that each has their strengths and weaknesses. However I would posit that seen 80 years later, in the context of the Ukraine/Russian war which is the closest analogue to WW1&2 since those wars, I'd say that Montgomery was the more correct of the two.

Comparing Montgomery, a man over armies, with an average US general who never did much is ludicrous.

Real act of courage on Derek Mills-Roberts part.

But that makes you a Montgomery too, by blood!

@@robertmaybeth3434 yep, a McGregor, a Stirling, a Wotherspoon and quite a few others I suspect..... aren't we all related far enough back? 😜

Monty was of the opinion that he was of a superior race,The Normans,and could trace his lineage back to before the 1066 Conquest.

your dad speaks out of his arse then

He was a master of the set-piece battle.

@@haroldflashman4687 he did very well on the move as well as this gentleman points out,,,,,As Generalfeldmarschall Kesserling noted ‘even a victorious army cannot keep up a pursuit of thousands of miles in one rush; the stronger the army the greater the difficulty of supply. Previous British pursuits had broken down for the same reason.’ and rather admiringly pointed out, ‘the British Eighth Army had marched halfway across North Africa - and over fifteen hundred miles - had spent the bad winter months on the move and in the desert, and had had to surmount difficulties of every kind.’

@@johndawes9337 In Africa, after El Alamein (which was a set piece battle) the German Army was too broken and defeated to offer much resistance, so it was no great accomplishment to keep moving against it. They were unable to offer coherent resistance.

@@haroldflashman4687 no great accomplishment to chase a enemy over 1500 miles in 19 days against the weather and 7 battles on the way..go jump in the lake you sad fool next you will be saying patton was a great general.

less assassinations lel

Indeed. Compared to the Imperial infighting, the allied commanders were practically bosom buddies. I’d no idea till this year how phenomenally bad the cooperation between the Japanese Navy and Army was

@@baahcusegamer4530Gotta love having an Army make Aircraft Carriers because the Navy doesn’t want to support you.

Even Hitlers relationship with his army was better than that of the Japanese army and Navy.

There was less fighting between US and British commanders in the American Revolution than between the IJN and IJA commanders during WW2

To a much lesser extent.

Montgomery stands out more because he was more prominent. I'd argue de Gaulle was "worse" but de Gaulle was comparably inconsequential while behaving as if he were equal to the likes of Eisenhower. And continued to be obnoxious after the war...

If there's one thing the Americans cannot stand it's someone acting better than them _who is actually better than them._ That's not to say Monty was right to do so, my GOD that man had an ego the size of a small country, but the yanks REALLY can't stand being reminded they're not God's special little favorites.

​@@Archris17 To be strictly fair, the inverse would've sparked a similar response from the British.

Brits: Americans are so arrogant and conceited. Brits when a Brit is arrogant and conceited: F*ck you, yanks. Yeah, that’ll work.

people were dying and yankee top brass were worried about their feelings of the generals

Brooke should have enforced military discipline on Monty, but he failed to do so.

Sounds like pandering to woke Americans being and wanting tonkeep them happy with a participation medal to me

@@johnfleet235 Better yet, put Montgomery and Patton in a room, lock the door, let them eat eachother. Saves the allies one badly incompetent typewriter general who hated his own troops (Patton) and one decently-competent general who was a liability because of his interactions with other commanders.

​@@nvelsen1975😂🤦 You should read more.

Taking the Scheldt was utterly vital and Monty should've been sacked for prioritizing Market Garden over it. The Royal Navy straight up told him this.

It was 1 bridge too far. Almost successful.

As a Canadian? It depends. I have numerous relatives who fought under Monty, (one great grandpa fought under him from north Africa and ended in Italy. The other from Italy to France and into the Netherlands.) Many of them loved him because he made an effort to care about them and not throw their lives away. Montgomery was a person. A complicated and imperfect person. He had successes and his failures, just as every other commander. I personally like him and respect him, as he's (in a weird way) is the reason I exist today. But I understand why people don't like him.

EXCUSE ME???? My dad was in the 1st Canadian parachute battalion. Him and his war buddies idolized monty.

Monty got 1100 airman and Paras - killed in one day crossing the Rhine - that was his bullshit excuse for not moving and showing the fact he really didn't have a clue. Monty cared so much at market garden that HE DIDN'T SHOW UP!!! 34,400 men go in 17,000 come out more monty fanboi baloney. Monty isn't the reason thousands of Tommies,Canucks and GIs are the reason

The other factors for Montgomery was that he had an 8th Army of multiple nations, different ethic and religious backgrounds, commonwealth countries, empire colonial troops and Free French. Each with governments calling to minimise casualties and allied demands for manpower and resources. Especially the Australian and NZ governments outraged by Churchills incompetence and the weak minded Allied desert command in the disastrous Greece and Crete campaign. The combined one structure American military had no such constraints. Montgomery managed such complex and conflicting political demands from multiple countries. In that regard it would be invertible that he had a cautious, less casualty, better supplies and firepower approach.

For goodness sakes. It doesn't matter who hated who. We were allies fighting an enemy who every day was killing more and more men, women, and children in those gas chambers. They were stopped and that's what matters.

@@CMAzeriahit’s a discussion worth having. Nobody is downplaying the United struggle against fascism.

@@CMAzeriahyet Monty still made it a dick measuring contest😊

Turning up 2.5 years late probably didn't help

@@williamchamberlain2263 ha y’all couldn’t hold out for that long with out American support

I think it's more than all the dislikable ones were self-aggrandizing, and therefore seem to be a majority when they aren't really.

We’re talking about posh Brit’s here.. Special category.

Truscott wasn't bad. Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. WON AND EARNED an MOH. Alan Simpson was simply superb. MacArthur should have let Eichelberger go European, or Marshall should have overriden him. In short, there were ways to improve things.

Still are

​@@scottjoseph9578Reaching the top of the armed services is exclusively reserved for two kinds of men, the sociopathically competitive and the pathetically obsequious.

The ironic thing is that no army would allow monty to serve today if he was diagnosed

Elon Musk also has no filter.

@@OrioleBeagle Elon has no morals. He rides on his earlier successes and became a grifter. He rides on reputation deserved or not. Not as simple as no filter

Monty most definitely had an ego - and a big one at that. He and Patton both did, but in their own ways. Patton had more of a blustering, 'hot' temper, whereas Monty was more cold and entirely oblivious to the effect his ego had on others. I agree with you on the diagnosis of aspergers.

What incredible battles did he win? I mean where he didn't have overwhelming material superiority. He 1) let Rommel escape halfway across Africa after El Alamein without making a serious effort to stop him; 2) Took 2 months to get out of the Normandy bridgehead, and only managed it then because the Americans broke through on his right and the Germans collapsed; and 3) Was the "mastermind" behind Operation Market Garden, the biggest (and only) disaster the Allies had in 1944. All while being completely full of himself. He doesn't even rank in the top 100 WWII generals imho.

@@scotty6glove who the fuck asked you derp

@@scotty6glove He planned Operation Overlord oh and Market Garden was no where near as bad as the Hurtgen forest and lorraine campaigns

@@richardthelionheart6924 "He planned Operation Overlord." lol you make it sound like he did it all himself, sitting at a desk with a map and a crayon. As for MG, HF, and LC, you're comparing things that took place over vastly different time frames. Per day of fighting, MG was easily the most costly in terms of Allied casaulties.

He was a lousy battlefield commander. Read a book by Corelli Barnett, called "The Desert Generals". The book, includes an update with the Ultra information and further analysis. He didn't know how use his armour at Alemain, and as a result, had a major failure to clear the mines during the battle, that almost caused the attack to fail. He also didn't complete the successes, and didn't capture Rommel after the breakthrough. As a result, he had to fight Rommel all the way to Tunisia.

Yes he put up with Bradley's stupidity at the Bulge.

It's hard to lead leaders. That skill is truly rare. Oppenheimer had it, early Reagan, Bush 1, Obama, but Trump tried to turn all his leaders into followers which leaves you with a staff that is either disgruntled or lackeys.

@@brokenrecord3523 Foreigners don't have opinions about the US. You know that.

He had to put up with the american generals.. going after big cities for popularity rather than following commands.

​@@EnglishScripter both Patton and Clark did that lol.

Indeed. Presenting that quote in that manner as well as accepting Monty’s self-serving explanation of his failure to capture Caen or make Goodwood work makes me wonder if there is a Monty brand Kool-Aid that Intel Report’s been drinking.

This is likely as close to apologies as Monty got and likewise with self reflection. I don't even think the Intel Report has been sippin' on the Monty juice. He was simply at his best overcoming finite circumstances as a group or division commander where his ever-rational operational approach eventually awarded him victory as he flexibly adapted to the circumstances in front of him. It is as a theatre commander leading grand strategy that his greatest weaknesses (unrestrained self-aggrandizement, inability to compromise and absolute commitment to his own correctness) are exposed and it greatly degrades his effectiveness as a military commander.

@@blue-pi2kt Army Commander was where he was best. Monty could not work well with allies. Ultimately, Eisenhower was superb as a Theater Commander.

I am not justifying Monty here just adding a comment..... but the British feel at the time is that America was very late to the war and seemed to think it was winning it single handily. meanwhile the Brits had been at it for 3 years.

Yep, that's a perfect example of the standard _I'm sorry you were offended_ non-apology apology that only a complete dullard would accept.

Patton did not even rate a German dossier before D-Day.

Clean monty's cack out of your eye sockets lil' villa. Patton routed Keselring's while bernard was montying on Sicily.The Russians and Germans knew monty was an uppity little nothing much like yourself.Had 4 full yrs to cross the channel yet waited for big brother. Twice Patton/Truscott flanked the Wehrmacht with amphibious landings on sicilian north shore

this one's barking - Villa how do you get food in your mouth with your head up monty's ass? Patton chastened the tart bernard in the art of war on Sicily - taking both Palermo and Messina whilst bernard montied. To prove that was no fluke Monty then went on to do even less in Italy/Caen/Falaise & of course Monty Garden. And as you know the Germans never drove Patton into the channel now that would make him Monty's equal *The Rommel Papers by B.H.Liddell-Hart page 523* "In Tunisia the Americans had to pay a stiff price for their experience,but it brought rich dividends .Even at the time American Generals showed themselves to be very advanced in the technical handling of their forces, *Although we had to wait until Patton's Army in France to see astonishing achievements in mobile warfare* The Americans it is fair to say, profited far more than the British from their experience in Africa, thus confirming axiom that education is easier than re-education" *Patton:A Genius for War,By Carlo D'Este, General Fritz Bayerlein commander of Panzer Lehr Division and in Rommel's Afrika Corp.He assessed the escape of Rommel's Panzers after Alamein "I do not think General Patton would have let us get away so easily said Bayerlein"* Comparing Patton with Guderian and Montgomery with Von Rundstedt.* *When interviewed in 1945,Heinz Guderian* , the Wehrmacht’s foremost practitioner of Blitzkrieg, stated, “ *General Patton conducted a good campaign. From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him on his victory since he acted as I would have done had I been in his place* General Gunther Blumentritt : *We regarded General Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive panzer-general of the Allies* . . . His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander. He even improved on Napoleon’s basic tenets. From a letter on exhibit at Wichita KS "Museum of World treasures" Hasso Von Manteuffel 8018 Diessen am ammersee Mariahilfe Strasse 7. Dec. 16. 1976 Dear Mr. Dellingatti; I thank you for your letter, attached you find a photo as you asked for. In my opinion General Patton was a master of lightning warfare and the best commander in this reference! Evidence of his excellent command and control of an army are the campaign in Sicily, the break-out in Brittany 1944 and during the Battle of the Bulge Dec 1944. I agree with Ladislaw Farago first-rate book on Patton "Ordeal and Triumph" - an excellent report! With very good wishes *Patton: Ordeal and Triumph, Ladislas Farago (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., Inc., 1964), p. 505* 'If Manstein was Germany's greatest strategist during World War II, Balck has strong claims to be regarded as our finest field commander. He has a superb grasp of tactics and great qualities of leadership' - Major-General von Mellenthin *General Balck, commenting on the Lorraine Campaign, said: "Patton was the outstanding tactical genius of World War II. I still consider it a privilege and an unforgettable experience to have had the honor to oppose him"* Fancy some more villa?

Yeah, I remember watching that at that tankfest. All I could think was it was a weird comment. Let's say he's 100% correct. Ok, but why does he feel the need to strike a blow against an ego that's been dead for 70 years. If he said a great disappointment to Patton's fanboys, at least that would have made sense, but a blow to the man's ego? How dead does a person have to get before their ego dies too?

@@morganmcallister2001 'Yeah, I remember watching that at that tankfest. All I could think was it was a weird comment. Let's say he's 100% correct. Ok, but why does he feel the need to strike a blow against an ego that's been dead for 70 years.' For every blow struck against Patton's ego, there are 300 blow struck against Montgomery's ego in comments on KZfaq, 299 of them posted by Americans. About 200 of them posted by some oppo from Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Montgomey has been dead for 48 years.

Churchill said of Monty "wonderful to serve under.....impossible to command" or something like that!

Today monty would be on the autistic scale..hence his faux pars

but knew his job

Most people under his command greatly liked and appreciated him. He really only rubbed up those on his level or above him.

@@lyndoncmp5751 Best sort of commander. imho

Then I would suggest that you might not like some of the American Senior Officers, albeit for different reasons. At least Monty was an excellent planner (well, his staff were) and took great care to ensure he was properly prepared. This kept casualties to acceptable limits. Patton on the other hand...

@@csjrogerson2377 This is perhaps Monty's biggest failure .... the cautious advances to hold casualties to "acceptable limits", while Patton aggressively advanced. If there were some metric for measuring cost/benefit ... casualty per square mile taken or Allied casualty sustained vs. German casualty inflicted or something like that, I think you'd find that Patton was a far more successful battlefield general.

@@MrTexasDan While Patton was a good tank commander you cannot compare them. Between Monty and Patton... Monty commanded more men, was concerned with bigger issues, and achieved greater successes. Normandy was Monty's success, and the Allied armies attained the areas that Monty had made as objectives for the campaign 3 days sooner than had originally been intended. Patton, by contrast, never commanded anything more than an army and was much more of a tactical commander than a strategist. His greatest success is the rush from Normandy to Metz and the 90 degree wheel in the Bulge... but the former was against a German army that had already been beaten by the slogging match in the Normandy campaign and the latter was against the flank of a German attack that was beginning to run out of fuel and manpower. At Metz, where Patton faced a dug in and determined enemy... Patton was stopped dead by French and German made fortifications, some of which going all the way back to the 1800s.

​@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-Sure you can compare Monty with Patton because they are not the same level of IQ. Unfortunate to the Allies, they didn't put the battle general Patton as the supercommand but a political general. As for Monty he was Britain could offer at that time but complete incompetent since 1943.

@@xchen3079 No, you logically can't. One was an Army Group Commander the other was a 4 star general. Completely different levels. If you are going to compare it should be Bradley and Devers who were also on Montgomerys level as Army Group commanders.

No.

A foolish comment made by a fool

The poof Bernard didn't show up for Monty Garden another poof Carrington stopped going no further. In England they give you lofty titles for failure like that - Field Marshall & Lord - LMAO when both buggered out.

@@bigwoody4704 lilwoodyWhittikar..you seem to be obsessed by homosexual thoughts..is this because of all the inbreeding in your family? now get back to what you do best Boy..licking windows

@@johndawes9337 pft really? your just throwing insults and reading way too much into this for your own immature mind all your doing is making your side look like arrogant short tempered assholes meanwhile steve here is objectively correct and he has made an argument he mentioned that everyone hated him and given his own countries officer core and nation today say he's a prick he's right everyone did hate him your just throwing base level ad homonym like it's impressive shamefull display at least read a dictionary and learn better ways to call someone an idiot

the gravity of their egos combined might rival that of a black hole

It had to have happened occasionally.

It wouldn't surprise me that there were always several men on standby to disarm and subdue them in the case they started shooting at each other.

they were good pals do not believe all the hollywood bs

If hate could be used as fuel, a locked room with the bullheaded idiot Patton and marshall Montgomery in it could've fueled the entire allied war effort. 😉

I would have loved to have met him!

If I was in his command I would have gone AWOl.

​@@dennishoffman1218it's a good job you never served then.

@@dennishoffman1218 yup an uppity little nothing that only prolonged the war because IKE out of favor to Churchill gave him a long leash.But Churchill in his memoirs admitted this mistake that he regretted

@@dennishoffman1218 You would of gone AWOL regardless.

what operation?

Montgomery 7th January, 1945, Press Conference: This from one of Montgomery’s harshest critics: WITH PREJUDICE The War Memoirs of Marshall of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder G.C.B. CASSELL & COMPANY 1966 P 636- 637 ‘In a press conference given on 7 January, Montgomery described how Eisenhower had placed him in command of the whole northern front. He emphasized that the repulse of the German onslaught had been an Anglo-American effort, but somewhat unfortunately went on to describe the battle as ‘most interesting. I think, possibly, one of the most interesting and tricky battles I have ever handled, with great issues at stake.’ Montgomery expressed his admiration for the fighting qualities of the American soldier and how grieved he was to see uncomplimentary articles about Eisenhower in the British Press. However, the subsequent handling of Montgomery’s statements by the British newspapers and by the B.B.C. caused a crisis. The Prime Minister telephoned several times to Eisenhower, who said that Bradley was most upset. He proposed to award the Bronze Star to Bradley with a citation drawing attention to his fighting qualities, and to the work of the American armies bearing the brunt of the German offensive. At a meeting on 9 January, the Supreme Commander remarked that censorship was a two-edged weapon. Anything withheld by the censors immediately acquired news value, and the Press, by inuendo or other means, invariably circumvented it. It seemed to him that he reaction of the American Press to the statements in the British newspapers would be to exaggerate the United States point of view. There would be no end to the statements which the Press of the two countries would make in reply to each other. He also remarked: ‘For two and a half years I have been trying to get the Press to talk of “Allied” operations, but look what has happened.’ ‘When de Guingand saw the British reporters in Brussels on 9 January, they were able to prove to him that their articles had given a balanced view of the picture, but that their editors had been responsible for the flaming headlines which told the British public that Montgomery had defeated the Germans in the salient. It was also learned that the radio station at Arnhem, then in German hands, had intercepted some of the despatches and had re-written them with an anti-American slant. They had been put out and mistaken for BBC broadcasts.’ And this from a reporter at the press conference: CHESTER WILMOT THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE WM. COLLINS, SONS AND CO LTD. 1954 P683 My dispatch to the B.B.C. was picked up in Germany, rewritten to give it an anti-American bias and then broadcast by Arnhem Radio, which was then in Goebbels's hands. Monitored at Bradley's H.Q., this broadcast was mistaken for a B.B.C. transmission and it was this twisted text that started the uproar. Stil... You have the Jewish Virtual Library behind you...crucial.

And then there was MacArthur...

@@origamiscienceguy6658 Oh yes, another difficult, brutal character, - I forgot him!

And then there was Markus Aurelius Clarkus. 😂

Patton didn’t fuck over the war effort or lead men into massacres though. You can be an asshole if you’re successful

@@origamiscienceguy6658 I mean... At least he was more effective than any of the others, despite him being such a bastard.

He liked the juniors alright read THE FULL MONTY

He was disliked by his equals because he could never treat them like equals. These were all educated and motivated men, brought together to do something historic, and all too often Monty undermined it by his insistence that his contributions/ideas/results were de facto the best and nothing anyone else had to say really mattered. He was more than happy to accept and promote the work of others up until it looked like they wanted to step on that last step along with him, or surpass him.

He was an unhinged halwit and if the war went on any longer IKE would have had him removed

My father was British SAS, close to Monty…we had a pair of his leather gloves. He was respected and loved by his men.

I'm sure all of that is true - of course it is. Britain had much better Generals - MUCH.The twisted tart shat on any body he thought would get praise besides him Three distinguished British officers who fought in Holland that winter and later became army commanders believed that the Allied cause could have profited immeasurably from giving a more important role to Patton. - *Lieutenant Edwin Bramall* said: “I wonder if it would have taken so long if Patton or Rommel had been commanding.”* - *Captain David Fraser* believed that the northern axis of advance was always hopeless, because the terrain made progress so difficult. He suggests: “We might have won in 1944 if Eisenhower had reinforced Patton. Patton was a real doer. There were bigger hills further south, but fewer rivers.” - *Brigadier Michael Carver* argued that Montgomery’s single thrust could never have worked: “Patton’s army should have been leading the U.S. 12th Army Group.” Such speculations can never be tested, but it seems noteworthy that two British officers who later became field-marshals and another who became a senior general believed afterwards that the American front against Germany in the winter of 1944 offered far greater possibilities than that of the British in Holland, for which Montgomery continued to cherish such hopes. *Freddie de Guingand, Montgomery’s Chief of Staff* confided to Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay on 28 November (according to the admiral’s diary) that he was “rather depressed at the state of the war in the west . . . the SHAEF plan had achieved nothing beyond killing and capturing a some Germans, and that we were no nearer to knocking out Germany.” *Between the beginning of November and mid-December 1944, British Second Army advanced just ten miles.* *Arnhem,Jumping the Rhine in 1944 and 1945. By Lloyd Clark, page 333 Tom Hoare* who fought with the 3rd Para at Arnhem may be said to reflect a commonly held perception of OMG, (or Field Marshall Montgomery’s fiasco,as he calls it) when he writes: *'It is my opinion that Monty was a great soldier, but he had a even greater ego. When victory was in sight for the Allies, he degenerated into nothing more than a glory seeker. With little regard for the welfare or indeed the lives of his men of the British 1st Airborne Division, he threw the division away in an insane attempt to go down in history as the greatest military leader of the Second World War.’* *Armageddon - The Battle for Germany,1944-45 by Max Hastings,page 50 Jack Reynolds and his unit,the South Staffords* were locked into the long,messy,bloody battle.There was no continuous front,no coherent plan,merely a series of uncoordinated collisions between rival forces in woods,fields,gardens and streets. *That is when it got home to me.What a very bad operation this was The scale dropped from my eyes when I realized just how far from our objective we've landed* *As Bob Peatling of the 2 Para said "Marshall Montgomery dropped a clanger at Arnhem"* Léo Major: The "One-Eyed Ghost" Who Single-Handedly Liberated a Dutch Town "He had made an awful mistake. I didn't like him at all." Leo Major, the most decorated Canadian soldier of WWII Losing an eye soon after D-Day, Major refused repatriation. He only needed one eye, he said, to aim his rifle. During the Battle of the Scheldt in occupied Holland, he was recommended for a DCM for a solo recon mission, from which he returned with 93 German prisoners. *Major refused it because the medal would be awarded by Field Marshal Montgomery, whom he despised His reason was simple: Arnhem.* Major felt Monty’s ill-fated airborne assault stopped Allied forces attacking on a broad front, delaying the liberation of Holland. Major believed Monty to be responsible for the deaths of some 20,000 Dutch citizens during 1944’s “hunger winter”. To quote Major exactly, “He had made an awful mistake. I didn’t like him at all.” Strong words, especially regarding a military megastar like Monty. This might also explain Major never being promoted above Corporal.

Yeah, the Brits might’ve had a less of a population, but we finance the war, and also fought it on two fronts, something that you, nor anyone else, could ever do. Just like Rommel said about Montgomery, he was a donkey.

Maybe, but I like you! lol

Not really...

Sorry, don't get it.

Monty always wanted more men and supplies. Hence the 15 and more @@lyndoncmp5751

😂 good one

Strange joke seeing Montgomery was a famous tea-totaller. They had a body double for him as part of the disinformation campaign leading upto Overlord but had to stop using him because he got publicly drunk and blew his own cover.

Of course Eisenhower couldn't directly promote Montgomery, but it's implied that he could use his influence to get Montgomery a promotion. I don't know the inside history of the British military during the war, but it's easy enough to imagine Eisenhower suggesting to Churchill (and they were pretty much in constant communication) that it would be a good thing for Montgomery to be promoted to Field Marshal and that Churchill would put the promotion through. From the reactions quoted from both British and American officers in the documentary, it seems pretty clear that this is what happened.

@@RRaquello Not really. Especially the British press had been playing up Montgomery (with his support) as a British hero, basically since El Alamein. When Eisenhower took over as Supreme commander allied forces in Europe, and also took over Montgomery role since Normandy of leading the ground forces, Montgomery resisted (quite a lot actually), while the British press saw it as a demotion for Montgomery, a snub to not only their hero, but also of Britain as a nation at arms. Montgomery tacitly supported this narrative. Churchill (always sensitive to public opinion) sought to address this by making Montgomery a Field Marshall, thereby placating the press, as well as public opinion (Eisenhower would be made 5-star general soon after, so that he would still at least be on the same rank). Eisenhower didn't think it a good idea when it was first proposed, but understood the political imperative in Britain, and was politically savvy enough to keep well out of it. Perhaps because he suspected he'd personally benefit from it not much later. But it certainly wasn't his suggestion to Churchill. Nor, frankly, could (or would) he have made the suggestion, as he had very little influence in Britain to have it go either way. It is notable that many of the top brass in Britain thought it a bad idea as well. According to his diaries, not even Brooke (essentially Montgomery's mentor and supporter since Dunkirk) was entirely sold on the idea. But In the end, it was primarily Churchill's idea, and he was PM.

@@BarthCrane I've read the big diary on the other side, that of Eisenhower's Naval Aid (Harry Butcher) which was basically Ike's semi-official daily record of war operations. If you haven't looked at it it's very interesting. The influence of Ike on British policies (from what I read in that book) was an odd one. He was very friendly with Churchill and had the best personal relations with him, but he could influence Churchill's actions simply by refusing to go along with them when he disagreed knowing that in his refusals he'd be backed by Roosevelt, really meaning General Marshall who was running the war with Roosevelt more or less a figurehead. Churchill was shrewd enough not to push matters far enough to come to a showdown. When Ike stuck to a point, Churchill would eventually back down. This is where people like Eisenhower, Churchill and Marshall are clearly superior to the Montgomerys and Pattons--their ability to see beyond their own local interests. Churchill and Marshall knew, and Churchill was willing to acknowledge, the fact that there was no way on earth that the American people, supplying 2/3rds-to-3/4ths of the troops on the Western Front, would accept being under a foreign commander. We had done that in the First World War, Pershing serving under Foch, with disastrous results as far as casualties were concerned. In that war, in the short time we were in it, and the small amount of the front we had taken over, the AEF became cannon fodder for French Generals the way French soldiers had been at Verdun and throughout the war. They wore their own soldiers out and couldn't wait to use our boys the same way. Montgomery wasn't that type of general but the overall commander in the west was always going to be an American. It could be no other way. Churchill knew it and even Montgomery knew it and accepted it, if grudgingly. One last thing, in the Butcher diary, which was largely a recording of Ike's views, I think Ike was mostly friendly to Montgomery. He had his frustrations with him but no more so than with some American generals and certainly a lot less than in dealing with the French. The French, even when the other allies were fighting to save their lives, were more interested in fighting with each other, or in collaborating with the Germans. They could never be trusted. Montgomery was a good soldier even if he was hard to get along with, and he at least knew who the enemy was and put his energies into fighting them instead of his allies.

@@RRaquello I have not read Harry Butcher diary, but now I probably will. Having read your reply, and do agree with almost all of it, and where I don't, I'd be quibbling to mention it. That is to say; it doesn't really matter. So, I do agree, the land forces commander, after Overlord, did, certainly politically, have to be an American, for the reasons given. I don't dispute that, because there was simply no other way. And in that sense, Beaverbrook's et al. campaign in the UK press was nonsensical. But that still left Churchill in a bind. Wanting to keep the UK press 'on side', he had to come up with something to placate them, as well as the riled up UK public. Promoting Monty to Field Marshall was what he came up with. It made Monty superior in rank to Eisenhower (at least for a bit), while still under Eisenhower's command. And, to be fair, it worked as well (again, for a bit, until the UK press started agitating again during the Bulge). There are no sources, that I am aware of at least, that suggest that either Eisenhower, Marshall, or, indeed, Roosevelt had any hand in that decision, while the King's true opinion (who devolves this down to HMG and, ultimately, parliament) we will probably never know (as is only right and proper, obviously). Nor am I aware of any sources that suggest that they tried to influence it either before or while it was made. Although afterward, they did respond by giving Eisenhower an extra star on his shoulders. As such, I maintain that neither Eisenhower nor indeed any American, used, would use, or even could use, their influence to give Monty his batons, and that any implication to the contrary is quite out of place. Given what I do know, and have read about both the British and the US side of things during this period, I find it very hard to imagine someone as politically astute as Eisenhower to so clearly overstepping (political) boundaries to suggest this to Churchill, let alone exerting influence to make it happen. Neither Eisenhower nor Churchill had the personalities or relationship for this to happen in this way. In the UK, certainly at that time, such interference with, essentially, UK domestic politics would simply not have been cricket, and surely both Eisenhower and Churchill would have been well aware of that. I doubt even Marshall or Roosevelt would have gone down that road. Indeed, I doubt even Brooke has much to do with it, and that's saying something!

@@BarthCrane It's a big book, over 800 pages, but worth reading not only to get a handle on the political wrangling but also on the logistical nightmare facing the Services of Supply, especially following the invasion. I've read here some comments about Eisenhower getting bogged down after taking over from Montgomery, but it must be understood that this was unavoidable whoever the commander was if for no other reason (and there were others) than that the roads and remaining transportation network (railroads) had largely been destroyed by pre-invasion allied bombing, which specifically targeted all transportation facilities, and the remaining infrastructure was inadequate for the traffic necessary to supply the army in the field. The allied armies had to rebuild this infrastructure as it went further into Europe and the advance of the armies was dictated by the speed which the infrastructure could be rebuilt. This is what the amateur military historian misses. He looks at a map and says "we should have done this and this and this, it was all wide open" while forgetting that the men must be fed and rearmed with fresh ammunition and the vehicles must have fuel. You get a real understanding of how this influenced both the strategic and tactical choices of Eisenhower throughout the war but especially in the months after Normandy.

Ike had the job Monty wanted, not the other way around.

Same I was was always told that in Italy Monty was to slow and calculating which allowed German forces to slip away and that Patton wanted to move fast to stop the Germans from retreating.

Don't see why, since Monty didn't plan or participate in operation Market Garden. Maybe he should have put his dislike towards people that planned it Brereton and Williams, or maybe the person that insisted on it Ike, or even the person that stuffed it up like Gavin

Well the people that told you that were wrong. You seem to have fallen down the myth pit.

​@robertpalmer3235 Yeah, better yet, you should have fought the war you deserved after the Balfour Declaration and Versailles on your own.

Market Garden failed because Gavin forgot what his mission was. He failed to capture Nijmegan when he had the chance and to keep the highway clear.

Nope not at all

BS!!😊

@@kimberlydunn954 Yeh You prove it isn't true, do som research.

You forgot to add the US Navy to that list

Just about everyone hated MacArthur

Yes indeed, Mac was a bit of an assh*le to his subordinates just like Monty. The difference is the MacArthur was very successful. Monty built his reputation on Alamein after he was able to out-supply Rommel. After the desert, Montgomery's war record was one of hesitation when boldness was called for and boldness when caution might have better served. The failure at the Faiaise Gap had dire consequences as the Germans were able to rebuild their Army in the west during the Autumn of 1944. In contrast, MacArthur had an almost unbroken string of success in the Pacific, yes, he also had overwhelming material superiority, but he also had incredible terrain and logistical challenges.

Mac was an ego beast...but troops under his command suffered fewest causalities of any allied army in ww2

Isn't it true MacArthur would often talk in the 3rd person IN PRIVATE? Lol

Monty would go down first. Patton is the human equivalent of a rabid dog and De Gaulle has the benefit of long arms.

Throw in MacArthur and we have a battle royale.

@@Samm815 nice! I completely forgot about good ole Doug. The room would probably explode from the pressures of the competing egos.

Yep, Patton was a warrior first and a soldier second. That's a man who just likes killin'

Don't forget to add Mark Clark and Macathur.

Not to mention when France was reconquered, Degaulle then goes "France has been liberated by the French" he literally REFUSED to acknowledge the British, Americans, Canadians and Poles who had just spent 2 months fighting set piece battles to liberate the French.

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Say it, brutha! Ike's and Monty's soldiers and many Canadians put their lives on the line so the vain and venal DeGaulle could march through the Arc de Triomphe as THE conquerer. Compared to DeGaulle, Monty was the personable and astute one. And where the hell were the French soldiers while my dad was being evacuated in 1944 from Brittany, France, with horrible wounds.

old enuf to recall that gallic scumbag back in my '60s grade school days, gallicly arrogantly proudly announcing Froglandia were leaving NATO, needing no aid nor asisstance from anyone, to remain strong and free. ...he annouced all that, nearly instantly on the global msm announcement of Spain NATO accession, ( meaning 'strong independent' Froglandia were now 360d fully ringed by NATO , (read: 'US'), nuclear umbrella, lol). opines of degaulle among my peers/fam are universally contemptuous, due to precisely that 'tea sipping' perception of his arrogance and of his cowardice, each trait archetypically exemplifying that entire nation of imbecilically inbred losers called 'france'.

I remember Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes years ago talking about his role in liberating Paris “and then de Gaulle marched in like he owned the place” or something like that.

@@eatmorenachos Rooney was spot-on on the arrogant De Gaulle.

I wouldn't be so sure. Patton was famously vain and well known for holding completely irrational grudges.

@@mattbowden4996 lol, just substitute Monty for Patton on your comment. Two peas in a pod.

@Bob.W. I don't disagree at all, but Monty's vanity isn't in dispute here.

'I doubt it was the lack of a free lunch that had Patton angry with Montgomery.' More likely, Montgomery was in the way of Patton's personal ambitions.

@Bob.W Ironically, Monty didn't have a problem with Patton. He seems to have liked and respected him. Montgomery never said or wrote a bad word about Patton. In Sicily, Monty wished Patton's soldier slapping incidents to be kept quiet, while in the Bulge Montgomery told Eisenhower he should send for Patton to relieve Bastogne (unaware that Eisenhower had already thought of that).

Without Eisenhower we’d have probably lost the war in the west.

@@knightblade0188 Thankfully Marshal was a good judge of character and ability and FDR backed him. It was the US part of the Supreme allied command that finally insisted on invading France in 44 instead of letting Churchill talk them into invading Greece.

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j sadly many British hate Eisenhower and still try to discredit him.

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j The US part of the SAC also insisted on invading France in 1941 with Ike and Monty having to convince them that it would be suicide.

@@knightblade0188 I've never met a single Brit with anything bad to say about Ike.

He was BS he lied one time - continuously oh and he liked little boys

Wow. That's saying a lot.

quite simple. British and French rest on their laurels cause they only needed to occupy weak countries while Germany and Japan developed their armies and navy with intent on attacking other empires. both used world war 1 tactics still against German blitzkrieg.

@twostep1953 'The best description I've heard of him came from a British officer.' Which officer would that be?..

@@91Redmist 'Wow. That's saying a lot.' Read this: SIR BRIAN HORROCKS CORPS COMMANDER Sidgwick & Jackson LONDON 1977 Page 216 ‘The more I studied the problem the less it liked it; without going into technical details, we were not properly balanced for this task. Whilst I was thinking it over, the telephone rang and a Staff Officer from the Twenty-first Army Group said that Field Marshall Montgomery was on his way to see me. A few minutes later he entered my caravan and said, ‘Jorrocks, I am not happy about Bremen. ‘Nor am I sir’, I replied. ‘Tell me about it’, he said. So, sitting in my map lorry I described the problem to him and made certain suggestions. He said not a word until I had finished. After a short pause while he considered the problem on the map, he said, ‘We will do A, B, C, and D. ‘These four decisions were vital - and Bremen was finished. I have deliberately mentioned this because it was typical. Montgomery was not my immediate Commander, but he always kept in such close touch with the battle that he knew when and where ‘the shoe pinched’. He then went down to see the Commander on the spot - in this case, me - and listened to what he had to say. He then made up his mind immediately. As he drove away I knew that he had probably already forgotten about Bremen and would already be considering the next problem. That was what made him such a superb battle commander.’

@@thevillaaston7811 I'd like to know too because that just sounds like utter nonsense, especially considering US generals purposely dragged their feet and failed to prepare for Market Garden up until days before because they were sure Ike would cancel it. That is literally messing up on purpose while also failing to follow orders at the highest chain of command.

Bradley was actually quite a jingoistic primadonna in the mold of Patton, throwing fits since Tunisia. After Ardennes even his relationship with Eisenhower soured.

Because Montgomery was a ego maniac. Everything was about him getting the credit. I did this I won this battle when in reality. PATTON, MC Arthur, Monty and Bradley sat back and watched their men win it but they immediately took the credit. F*****G GENERALS, AS WORTHLESS AS TITS ON A BOAR PIG.

@@sumivescent Bradley had a great press agent in Ernie Pyle, who loved him and whose syndicated newspaper column pretty much set Bradley's image in the minds of the American people. That's how he came to be known as the "GI's general".

You do realize that prewar the three of them were very close friends. There has a book written about it. If my age addled brain doesn't fail me The relatively independently wealthy Patton was assigned with Eisenhower to some very substandard Married Officers Quarters he financed their mutual renovation which was beyond Ike's meager resources.

Monty was trash, and worse than every single general you mentioned.

they do if he is successful monty wasnt always succssesful and he made excuses for his failures that nobody believed

American forces who served under Montgomery were usually complimentary. Mostly because he might be annoying, hard to work with and had an ego the size of small planet but he made sure the officers under him were competent and the lower ranks were well taken care of. The classic case is the Ardennes when British forces moved in to shore up the collapsing US 1st army one of his first actions was making sure the Us troops received hot food in the front lines rather than the normal US system of making fighting troops rely on ration packs and putting main food service in the rear lines. He paid attention to details.

Yeah that hot food scared the shit out of the Germans....@@voiceofraisin3778

Got i link to that footage good sir? I'm interested in seeing it, but failed to get a good search result.

At the battle of the Bulge GIs threw Monty in the stockade thinking him and imposter.IKE got a big charge out of it as the arrogant ass was trying to take credit for the Bulge's success.

@@bigwoody4704 more big Woody rubbish !! how are you so clueless . It was Eisenhower who put him in charge of the north flank of the bulge .

An admirable quality most likely brought on by his experiences in World War I and the extensive losses of a generation in the trenches.

An admirable quality most likely brought on by his experiences in World War I and the extensive losses of a generation in the trenches.

especially his 'bat boy' read the book on him "Monty"

I think anyone can see how dumb that was and is the main reason for the US not wanting to get involved early on in either war, but always seem to get yelled at for doing so. Being overly cautious (Traumatized from the past) during wartime isn't seen as a positive in the military. It's a fine line many generals get called back for.

We didn’t experience walking into no man’s land and getting cut down with machine guns you’re right. Actually in world war 1 when America arrived in France there was a French division retreating from the Germans. The French general scribbled the word retreat on a note and handed it to the American general. To which the American general replied “Retreat? Hell, we just got here!” Don’t blame America for not getting involved right away, had America not been involved in WW2 the Brit’s would be speaking German right now

He certainly did not oversell his ability during Sicily, or Normandy... What are you on.

Gee; Monty did no such thing as FACTUAL history clearly shows.

@@SirJamesSomerville99yes he did dude got some many people killed in stupid situations

I say oh boy, we are not ready to fight just yet. We need to get our forces up to standards. That gave the Germans more time to build up a defense.

@@jbombs7511 Ugh, no. The American's did by failing to capture their bridge on time. Typical really. 96% success rate lmap.

Monty should have been left in command of all ground forces after Normandy. On 3 Sept 1944 when Eisenhower took over overall allied command of ground forces everything went at a snail's pace. The fastest advance of any western army in Autumn/early 1945 was the 60 mile thrust by the British XXX Corps to the Rhine at Arnhem.

@@johnburns4017 Agreed. But a General's biggest enemy is politics. Can you imagine what would have happened of John Wayne had not been allowed to win the war?

@@samgraham9235 Eisenhower was a politician not a warrier. Monty should have been left in charge while he talks to Chiefs of Staff and political leaders. It was too much for him and he just was not good enough for ground command as the results showed. Montgomery to AlanBrooke.. _"If we want the war to end within any reasonable period you have to get Eisenhower’s hand taken off the land battle._ *_I regret to say that in my opinion he just doesn’t know what he is doing._* Montgomery wrote of Eisenhower and his ridiculous broad-front strategy on 22 January 1945: _“I fear that the old snags of indecision and vacillation and refusal to consider the military problem fairly and squarely are coming to the front again . . . The real trouble is that there is no control and the three army groups are each intent on their own affairs. Patton today issued a stirring order to Third Army, saying the next step would be Cologne . . . One has to preserve a sense of humour these days, otherwise one would go mad.”_ Alanbrooke wrote in his diary about Einsenhower: _“At the end of this morning's C.O.S. [Chief of Staff] meeting I put before the committee my views on the very unsatisfactory state of affairs in France, with no one running the land battle. Eisenhower, though supposed to be doing so, is on the golf links at Rheims_ *_- entirely detached and taking practically no part in running of the war._* _Matters got so bad lately that a deputation of Whiteley, Bedell Smith and a few others went up to tell him that he must get down to it and RUN the war, which he said he would."_ _"We discussed the advisability of getting Marshall to come out to discuss the matter, but we are doubtful if he would appreciate the situation. Finally decided that I am to see the P.M. to discuss the situation with him.”_ _"November 28th I went to see the P.M. I told him I was very worried."_ Alan Brooke described in his daily diary that American generals Eisenhower and Marshall as poor strategists, when they were in jobs were strategy mattered. Brooke wrote to Montgomery about his talks with Eisenhower, *_“it is equally clear that Ike has the very vaguest conception of war!”_*

@@samgraham9235 HAHAHAHAHA another delusional limey!! it's painfully obvious that the sons of "britannia's" greatest asset is their ability to bulls**t themselves !

I mean, when you have men with thousands upon thousands of lives in the palms of their hands with the liberation of Europe at stake. You need to be a confident asshole to pull that kind of weight and to make extremely tough decisions that a normal person wouldn't.

Ike may have had a healthy ego, but he certainly did not present himself that way. He was able to keep his in check, unlike others.

Monty was actually born in London near the Oval cricket ground.

@@johnburns4017 You beat me to it.

The whole of Ireland was British in 1887, even the bit Montgomery wasn't born in. Which reminds me, has Joe Biden told us which part of Ireland he's from at all?

@@davemac1197 He will when he wakes up.

.He will beat the Orange Grifter Draft Dodger Bine Spurs Donnie Dump@@thevillaaston7811

Hell yes. Marshalls the one that said we're not going to sack Patton.

Jill

Ike served as MacArthur's staff officer for a good number of years until Doug retired from the Army. Ike said MacArthur liked to surround himself with bootlickers so he would look more competent. Ike went in the different direction and had generals under his command that would argue with him.

@@billwilson-es5yn 'Ike said MacArthur liked to surround himself with bootlickers so he would look more competent.' Really?.. Where is this on record?

Ike was a colonial when WWII started. He was jumped over a number of generals who were better qualified for the allied command. But he was a politician and shmoozed Marshal. Eisenhower had never commanded soldiers in the field. He was a desk jockey.

you are very good at chocolate starfish talk

Without the code breakers, he just might have screwed up in El Alamein. Hell, the Brits might still be there making sand castles. Monty in the Ukraine. Just think of how that would play out!

LOL... OFFICIALLY, Montgomery's forces did cross the Rhine first. Patton actually crossed the night before in order to take advantage of the cover of night, and was happy to have the OFFICIAL crossing as his misdirection-play. The Germans knew Montgomery was coming. How could they not with all the bridging equipment and troop build-up? I always thought that was a brilliant move on Patton's part.

@@ericlarson6390 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludendorff_Bridge#

They did. It's an overlooked battle. I only now know the name of the parachute attack, Varsity. It was even bigger than Market from Market Garden.

@@ericlarson6390 But Stupot 2030 has not claimed that Montgomery's forces did cross the Rhine first.

@@nickdanger3802 CRUSADE IN EUROPE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER WILLIAM HEINEMANN LIMITED 1948 CHAPTER 22. P423 ‘Montgomery was always the master in the methodical preparation of forces for a formal, set piece attack. In this case he made the most meticulous preparations because we knew that along the front just north of the Ruhr the enemy had his best remaining troops including portions of the First Paratroop Army.’ P427 ‘The March 24 operation sealed the fate of Germany. Already, of course, we had secured two bridgeheads farther to the south. But in each of these cases surprise and good fortune had favoured us. The northern operation was made in the teeth of the greatest resistance the enemy could provide anywhere along the long river. Moreover, it was launched directly on the edge of the Ruhr and the successful landing on the eastern bank placed strong forces in position to deny the enemy use of significant portions of that great industrial area. IKE & MONTY: GENERALS AT WAR NORMAN GELB 1994 CONSTABLE AND COMPANY LIMITED 1994 CHAPTER 21. P406: ‘Montgomery wouldn’t hear of it. An early crossing did not fit the plan he had been devising with great thoroughness to meet all contingencies. The resourceful Germans had shown in the Ardennes that they were capable of the unexpected. Bradley, Patton and Hodges might have been willing to gamble and Montgomery was pleased that they had succeeded. But he was not interested in easy victories that might be of limited significance, and he did not believe they fully understood the risks they had taken or the extent of the far greater achievement he was aiming for. Risk-taking was for amateurs. The results of the first day of his massive Rhine-crossing operation demonstrated the value of doing things right - six divisions were firmly across the river at a cost of only 1,200 casualties’

Yes it does

Americans under him seems to not hate him...

If that's your opinion on starting to watch, maybe you should quit immediately

Look bud, if you graduated from Patton Indoctrination High, there aint much this video can do for you. And yes there's a reason I immediatly poke sarcastic fun at you. That reason being Montgomery was "Egomaniac BUT highly competent" while the idiots who collided with his ego, mostly Patton were badly incompetent, shouldn't have been promoted past 1st LT and whose war contribution was negative.

Did any of his Peers, other Generals of the same rank, that worked with him like him?

We were unlucky in having Eisenhower in command of ground troops.

Operation market garden. All Monty's doing and killed a ton of his own men in 8 days. Of the approximately 10,600 Allied forces who made it north of the Rhine in September 1944, some 7,900 were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Allied casualties during the operation totaled more than 17,000. Brilliant he was not.

Most people hate Poles. They're in no position to talk.

Good point.

I am old enough to have spoken with a number of Poles who served in WW2. Not one ever said that they hated Monty. As far as Market Garden was concerned, their scorn was directed at the Air Plan which was a dismal failure and nothing to do with Monty!

@@nickjung7394 Polish troops were not only fighting in operation Market Garden so they might have fought else where. I am Polish and I know for a fact that Monty did fault the Polish general Stanisław Sosabowski. How would you feel if you fought valiantly but operation failed and all was faulted on you?

Montgomery had no jurisdiction to remove Sosabowski. It wasnt Montgomery who removed Sosabowski. Browning had a personal issue with Sosabowski due to his insubordination and lack of being a team player, plus his age. Browning recommended two younger Poles be chosen to replace Sosabowski. As it turned out, Browning was got rid of before Sosabowski. Browning was a scapegoat. Browning was out of the airborne before Sosabowski was. There is no evidence Montgomery blamed Sosabowski. All Montgomery did was listen to the complaints of others. He didn't personally know Sosabowski.

He did not want to take command in Africa and have to go up against Rommel until he was told that the German code had been broken and that he would know Rommels orders before Rommel himself knew his orders, thereby making Monty out to be a hero, it wasn’t until operation “ Market Garden “ turned out to be a disaster that the true Monty was exposed as an incompetent leader, that Eisenhower had to relieve him of his command.

That's very interesting and fascinating. You have lived quite the long life.

My Uncle was in the desert, circa 1943 when the General was touring the front line. Les, said it was like meeting an icon, yet Monty, who had served in the trenches, in the Great War, was buoyant. " a ball of energy" was my uncle's comment.

Let me guess. And your father shook hands with Lawrence of Arabia. 😂

Montgomery WAS an icon; he was the hero the British people needed at the time.

Uhh, monty threw away a lot of lives during market garden, his bigest loss

@@dogguy8603 no he did not..MG was planned by Brereton and Williams, Ike demanded it and rubber stamped it sadly Gavin of the 82nd messed it up by not taking the Waal bridge on landing.

@@dogguy8603 Just as Patton threw away a lot of lives in the Lorraine campaign.

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- when did I say anything about Patton?

@@dogguy8603 you did not but i think you need to know how wasteful Patton was with his men seeing you wrongly accused Monty of doing so.

I read the excerpt at 4:15 and immediately thought, "Oh, he's autistic."

@@dylandarnell3657 "...has autism" sounds better. People are more than just a disability. We would probably call it Asperger's syndrome these days.

@@skathwoelya2935 I'm autistic. I use whichever formulation is more convenient in a given sentence, because - as a matter of self-care - I can't be arsed to coddle the delicate sensibilities of neurotypical activists who want to milk my illness for clout. (And if I _could_ - if I woke up tomorrow as someone who _did_ reliably have that level of executive function - I still wouldn't do it, because [a] I would have better things to focus that energy on and [b] I don't like them.) Also, last I checked in with the clout-farm side of mental illness activism, "Asperger's syndrome" had fallen off the euphemism treadmill - the internet had held one of its Ex Post Facto Nuremberg Re-Enactments (you know, as it does) and convicted Hans Asperger on charges of Being A Nazi. Did that get overturned, or did they just memory-hole it?

@@dylandarnell3657 It's interesting how people on the spectrum tend to assume that other people commenting on YT aren't on the spectrum. I sometimes fall into that trap myself. I don't like the neurotypical activists either as they have an annoying habit of calling people like me "autistic" which I strongly object to - I still have all my other characteristics that make me a fully rounded human being. The current edition of the DSM-5 absorbed "Asperger's syndrome" into "Autism Spectrum Disorders" in 2013 to simplify things. I would prefer "Autism Spectrum Conditions" as "Disorder" suggests something that needs to be cured and AS/autism doesn't need to be. It definitely isn't an "illness" as you claim for yourself. It's a developmental condition. Hans Asperger fell out of favour about five years ago - although if we cancelled all the historic scientists who made advancements by unethical means, or who had bad politics, there probably wouldn't be any left. I'm sticking with "having Asperger's syndrome" as it is less likely to be used as a term of abuse than the word "autistic" is. Also, it's more specific to more able Aspies and was still being used by clinical psychologists in the UK years after the (American) DSM-5 discontinued it. They still might be for all I know. I enjoy your prose style, by the way.

We have our moments. But we usually come out on top.

The biggest fool of all was Monty himself but that's another story. Gen Eisenhower although strategy wise wasn't the greatest General but he did keep everybody on the same sheet of music. Considering what or should I say who he had to deal with. Just getting two ego maniacs (Patton and Monty) in the same room talking to each other was a miracle in and of its self. Sometimes I think there was the military side and the political conflict but isn't that true in any war.

@@paulpalmer6364 Ike was a buffoon. Monty was the finest general in WW2. Big difference.

Hard to be too tough on the yanks riding in a sherman tank so you could finally compete.....

Now that is funny

His mother rejected him, and he never got over it.

I thought the general view now was that he was a closet case.

Either an autist or a full-time gamer by todays standard.

Smart woman. Saved a life of grief she did.

Your grandad was jack job

From everything I've read, enlisted men and junior officers who served _under_ Montgomery liked him quite well, because he was a very capable commander who would win battles, and whom they knew would not needlessly spend their lives. It was another story, however, for officers of equal or greater rank, who had to serve alongside or over Monty -- they found his monumental ego, tendency toward self-promotion, and utter lack of anything remotely resembling tact extremely hard to take. This included British senior officers as well as American. Eisenhower's second as supreme Allied commander for the ETO, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder developed a strong dislike for Montgomery. Winston Churchill summed Monty up as "in defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable."

@@Hibernicus1968 Monty's superior Alan Brooke acknowledged than he 'once again I had to haul him (Monty) over the coals for his usual lack of tact'.

There's an old belief that I believe is most likely true that Monty demanded that ALL driver's, tank, armoured vehicles and trucks be former bus, taxi, etc professional drivers in civilian life because he believed that they would have better navigation skills...... very important in an endless desert

Haha, either had a few drivers or I've just discovered a new relative!

Monty version of events. He had plenty of detractors also inside the British military

getting someone a bad gift and forgoing usual officer protocall (lunch or the like) is typically called an insult if it was a sorry could we just get into the planning and no gift patton likley wouldn't have taken the insult

Interesting insight. Thanks for posting.

At least he didn't rough up a shell shocked soldier!!!!!

He just caused the deaths of thousands in Operation Market Garden.

You don't risk your life on front lines to just push a narrative about yourself...

Where did Montgomery fail ?

Patton and Monty deserved each other.

Weak relativistic analysis, Mr. Davis. Patton has Metz, Montgomery has Market Garden, Sicily, and Falais to answer for. Ironlcally, one historian aptly commented that, after El Alamein, Monty would never risk his new found reputation by ever taking a risk again.

@johnhill7058 Slow your roll dude...Wasn't critiquing their military acumen. I was referring to them both being Prima Donna's,

@johnhill7058 Patton attack at Metz was fool hardy. Germans simply withdrew. Patton could have skirted metz and achieved the same strategic goal with fewer loss of men and material... Patton wasn't called blood and guts for nothing. Like Montgomery, ego gets in the way... How's that analysis

I'd be curious to know what he ever did that was "brilliant. "

Patton was competent at his job and didn't tolerate bullshit. No wonder the Brits didn't like him.

well duh. thats generally what men of that mindset do. Hard to get two Grizzlies in a cage and not expect a fight. but damn I'm glad we had them both.

Difference is that Patton won battles.

@@ronryan7398 So not much difference? I mean Montgomery won most of his battles. He just knew that sometimes caution or even retreat was the correct order, rather then throwing away 700 of his own men attacking a strategically unimportant heavily fortified position while low on supplies in a frontal assault straight out of WW1's playbook which is more then can be said for Patton.

he called patton vain in the middle of a talk on monty give it time and thhat's more than good enough for now taking time to point that out in a focused talk of monty is both warranted and fair pointing out pattons flaws does not forgive your own