Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Alexander v Montgomery
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by aussiebrit (U13851320) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
This question is put to all members.
Should Eisenhower have advised Roosevelt and Churchill that Montgomery should be relieved of command of the 21st Army Group ????.
Monty was not a very supportive member of the way Ike was directing the allied campaign against Germany in Western Europe in 1944/45.
Even though he had a terrific reputation with the British soldier and the civilian population, he could not see the wider picture.
Time and again he threatened to undermine the Allied unity,stretching Ike's patience.
He continually rub his colleagues the wrong way and always gave a one sided and vainglorious explanation as to why his methods where his own
ideas.
We must not forget that he directed the 8th Army to win its most glorious victories when Britain desperately needed victories.
Possible solution.Should Alexander been given command of the 21st Army Group, he was a very able commander, a brilliant tactician, had a very sound sense of judgment and understood the men under his command.
As commander of the 15th Army Group in Italy he directed an outstanding campaign when he had under his command over 12 different nationalities and knew how to get the best from his commanders and his troops. I am positive he would have been an asset to the allied war effort in Normandy etc and would have had a better relationship with Ike but still representing the British nation in
in the best possible way. -
Message 2
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
No, you don't change a winning team without very good reason.
Alanbrooke could and did curb Monty when it was necessary.
Alexander whilst personally very brave and a very charming person wasn't Monty's equal. -
Message 3
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
why exactly should Monty have been relieved of command
had he lost any battles - No !!
had he been out thought and out fought by his rival German opposites - No !!
was this because he was commanding armies with huge advantages in manpower and resources - yes maybe
would those same advantages enabled any other general to win - probably - you would have had to go some to lose at that time
how do we know it could have been done more efficiently and without internal conflict - retrospectively
he was a hero in the churchil class and adored by the british public
what would have happened to civilian morale and allied cooperation if he had been sacked
especially when Gen Mark Clark sat safe
st -
Message 4
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
Nevertheless, Montgomery was insubordinate to Eisenhower after D-Day and made the task of defeating Germany more difficult than it should have been by his constant disagreements over strategy (as Sir Max Hastings has pointed out in his excellent "Armageddon" the Allies suffered greater casualties on the Western Front in the last year of WWII than in the last year of WWI). He came within a whisker of being removed after the repulsion of the Germans' Ardennes Offensive in January 1945 as this article outlines:
Montgomery was on much weaker ground after the failure of Operation Market Garden which reaffirmed Eisenhower's broad front strategy with emphasis on capturing southern Germany and Austria whilst leaving the Soviets to capture Berlin. Monty failed to appreciate the difficulties in making an Antwerp a usuable supply port and in the importance of clearing the Scheldt estuary and Walcheren until it was too late resulting in a continued dependence on the long supply line from the Normandy beachead causing the Allied advance to falter and almost making the Ardennes counter-offensive inevitable.
Monty not only lacked humility which might be forgiven in a great commander but also the ability to admit his own mistakes, a fault often attributed to the commanders of WWI. Worse than this he started to believe in his own publicity and that he was indispensable to the war effort. It was only when his Chief of Staff, de Guingand, returned from the conference where he had persuaded an extremely reluctant Eisenhower to delay by 24 hours his cable relieving Montgomery of command and told Monty that Churchill, who knew Eisenhower always acted with Roosevelt's full authority and who subordinated all other considerations to fully co-operating with the US in the war effort, had sent a message to Alexander in Italy to hold himself in readiness to take over from Montgomery that Monty finally yielded and sent a letter of apology to Eisenhower.
Although Churchill participated in the creation of the "Monty" legend after the war (as it was intimately bound up with his own) I think he came to regret summarily dismissing Auchinleck after the First Battle of El Alamein and thought that either Auchinleck or Alexander would have been better suited to working with the Americans in the assault on Western Europe after June 1944.
Monty's abrasive personality was ideally suited to a situation where he was in overall charge and we had "our backs to the wall" (although the position he had inherited from Auchinleck in Egypt was far from as desperate as he made out at the time, as Churchill later came to realise) however in the integrated allied command structure that was set up for the assault on Europe (both in Italy and France) where political and diplomatic skills were as much at a premium as military ones Monty was more of a fly in the ointment than a pearl in the oyster. -
Message 5
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
Eisenhower could not directly dismiss Monty that would have to be done thru the British Command.
Doing that would have generated a huge political row which I doubt anyone wanted.
Alanbrooke should also be credited with curbing Monty. He was the one person Monty obeyed without question.
Monty was never actually insubordinate but certainly had strong views on how the war should be prosecuted and quite fairly put these forward if not in the most diplomatic terms.
The rest is mere Monty bashing -
Message 6
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
If Eisenhower had requested Monty's removal Churchill would have assented and had indeed contacted Alexander as a potential replacement as de Guingand informed his boss. Churchill had removed equally popular commanders such as Dowding, Wavell and Auchinleck for far less provocation than Monty had committed without compunction.
-
Message 7
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
If Churchill did he would have faced an apalling political fall-out given Monty's popularity both with the public and his army. Ike also recognised that fact
I've also no doubt that Alanbrooke would strenuously opposed it. It was he as much as Freddy de Guingand who was responsible for curbing Monty
BTW Dowding was past retirment age and there were problems within the Air Ministry about him continuing. The other two, whilst popular were unfortunately seen as 'losers' unfair though that might be. That was the reason for their removal from command. Monty was not seen as a loser quite the contrary. -
Message 8
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
Perhaps but Churchill subordinated every other consideration to keeping onside with the Americans. At one stage he would have jettisoned De Gaulle but for the opposition of the War Cabinet. He would not have allowed even Monty to stand in the way of a fully functioning Anglo-American alliance.
-
Message 9
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
Well you have put your finger on it. If Churchill bowed down to the War Cabinet over De Gaulle (and from what I read I don't think it went that far at all, but never mind) I can't see the War Cabinet and Chiefs of Staff bowing down to him given Monty's position, which would be far more important in British eyes.
Americans forcing us to sack our most successful General ? I think not. The US would hardly break the alliance at that stage of the war, over such a matter. A compromise was reached, orchestrated by Alanbrooke, the one person Monty obeyed without question. Ike although sorely tried by Monty at times was also a realist and knew the importance of keeping the alliance together -
Message 10
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
I remember Alanbrooke in his diaries describing Alexander in several entries as personable but not a 'big' man, pretty damning.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.