I’ve never quite figured out what to make of Bernard Montgomery. As colorado says, Monty may have had a personality disorder. Probably true, and it had some narcissistic overtones to it. Part of it might be that Monty was highly insecure. In “Guns at Last Light,” Atkinson mentioned that Monty didn’t get high marks at St. Paul’s, never made it past cadet private, and had never been invited to the Headmaster’s office. He may have been haunted by the phrase “not good enough.”
As for his generalship, I agree that Monty had a good early run, but that his star was waning later in the war. I’m not that familiar with his record with 3rd Division in 1940, but generally the BEF maintained its cohesion during the retreat to Dunkirk. As for Africa, you can’t fault Monty for conducting a fight in such a way that maximized his army’s strengths and guaranteed every chance of success. War is not meant to be a fair fight, you fight to win. And having won in Africa, Monty was a hero.
I disagree that Monty didn’t do well in Normandy. In many ways, Normandy was his best fight. He planned it meticulously, and corrected a number of flaws in the early concept. He knew the campaign would hinge on the race betwen the Germans and Allies to bring divisions to the battlefield. The actual battle didn’t go as Monty planned, and the Allies initially fell far behind Monty’s lodgement schedule. Part of that was due to things beyond Monty’s control, such as atrocious flying weather or the flagging morale of war weary British troops who, after years of fighting, felt they’d “done their part.”
But this was where Monty adapted. He deliberately drew the bulk of the German armor over to his sector of the front and tied it down in a series of very costly battles around Caen. This freed up the Americans to break out of Normandy and win the Battle of France. Despite the knowledge that the British army was a wasting asset, Monty got the war weary British soldier to summon up one more major bloodletting. And in pursuing this strategy, you can’t say he was winning victories with the lives of other countries’ sons.
But despite what I consider a major victory at Falaise, there has always been the accusation it was an incomplete or “flawed” victory. His generalship was “not good enough.” And coming out of Normandy, Monty was able to do the same type of force ratio calculation he did before the invasion. Except this calculation was one of the relative combat power of the British Army as opposed to his American allies. He knew Britain was going to play an ever shrinking role, and as British commander, so would he. For the thin-skinned insecure Monty, it was equivalent to another personal indictment of “not good enough.” Hence the gamble of Market-Garden, the last offensive effort of the British Army and Monty’s last chance to show his greatness. He failed; “not good enough.”
But Monty’s narcissism, if that’s what it was, or maybe a defense mechanism of denial, wouldn’t let him find any fault in himself. He was perfect. His plan was perfect. If anything went wrong, it had to be for “other reasons.” He had to denigrate the leadership qualities of the Americans, and the Ardennes Offensive and his taking command of the northern flank gave him a green light. If the British Army couldn’t be bigger than the Americans, it had to be better. And that meant he had to be better.
So we have his exchanges with Ike where Monty burns his bridges.
The desire to come off as the “perfect general” will come out after the war in Monty’s memoirs. In describing the Normandy campaign, Monty will make it sound as though everything happened like clockwork according to his master plan. It was far from the truth. And ironically, had Monty written the truth, he would have been come off better in the judgement of history. He had a good plan, but circumstances changed. He adapted on the fly, brilliantly, and won a crushing victory. That’s what great generals do. But Monty couldn’t do that. His towering ego, that masked an underlying insecurity, wouldn’t let him do it.
Sorry about typos. I still haven’t mastered typing on a tablet.
If there were any typos I didn’t notice. I was too busy enjoying and pondering your well-informed and very interesting take on the matter.
Good synopsis on Monty.
You are correct on Normandy. Things changed. Monty checked the German armor and allowed Bradley the time and space to take Cherbourg.
My take on Monty is what Patton was reported as saying about him, and himself.
“Hell, I know I’m a Prima Donna Brad, but so is Monty, only he wouldn’t admit it.”
I agree Monty's style was just what was needed in North Africa. Churchill made a huge gamble when Britain was alone and under the Blitz that Germany could not mount an invasion of Britain and therefore decided to reinforce and double down on North Africa. A careful commander who would not waste such preciously husbanded resources was just what was required.
Interesting thoughts and analysis.
I think if Monty had had his way in this war, there’s a good chance you and I and the rest of us wouldn’t be here communicating so enjoyably with one another in a relatively free environment.
Another point about Monty, I think, is there seems to be some kind of inherent failure in British command that goes back as far and probably beyond, the 1854 Charge of the Light Brigade, an unnecessary sacrifice of brave soldiers because the British commander wouldn’t listen to reason and had his head up his a##, similar to what I see here with Monty. Probably goes all the way back prior to King George. An arrogance, an aloofness, a stiffness, that binds and blinds a proud heart from seeing clearly. Something like that.