Montgomery

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Just saw a British special on El Alamein... it closed with the statement that Monty visited the Commonweath Cemetery there many years later... and was invited to visit the German cemetery. It was said that he rejected the invitation with a statement to the effect that "I was responsible for enough deaths without that". This suprises me, it just doesn't seem like him. Did he develop a conscience in his elder years? I really don't know, but would like to, given thousands of Canadians died under his command. Please advise.

[John McGillivray]

A few years ago I read Bradley’s book “A General’s Life”. He portrays Montgomery as being some type of lunatic during the later parts of 1944. At the time I thought that this was just another example of American chauvinism. However, I recently finished reading Terry Copp’s book “Cinderella Army”, which pretty much confirms what Bradley had written.

Much of Terry Coop’s book deals with the opening of the Channel ports and the port of Antwerp. Montgomery comes across as a glory hound who was trying to win the war all by himself. Eisenhower had stated that the priory was to be the opening of the ports, especially the opening of Antwerp. Montgomery instead of helping the Canadians, appeared to be doing everything in his power to delay or block the Canadians from opening Antwerp.

Why would he be doing this? Eisenhower and the other American commanders wanted to advance on a broad front with all three Army Groups. Under this plan Montgomery’s role would be diminished. He would be only one of three army group commanders. Montgomery however, wanted to be the star performer. He wanted to advance on a narrow front towards the Ruhr, with the two American Army Groups playing only minor roles. The shortage of supplies favoured Montgomery’s plan. But, with Antwerp open, there would no longer be a shortage of supplies and all three Army Groups could push on into Germany.

No Canadians were invited to the opening ceremonies when the first ship arrived in Antwerp. I think this was because Montgomery was POed at the Canadians for getting the port open and undermining Montgomery’s plans for personnel glory.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

All that history is known to me, but it doesn't answer my question.

[Rob Beale]

I think, it states that he asked his staff officers what the allied casualties would be in the impending battle of El Alamein. They just looked at him, and he said he predicted 13,000, which turned out to be close.

I have always thought that one reason they gave medals to generals was that they knew their plans would kill or maim many of their own.

His antics in NW Europe don't feature much here as 2NZ Div were no longer under his command there. (Of course our antipodean view of Brit generals in WWI is that they didn't give a damn about their own or dominion troops.)

After the debacles of WW1, NZ govt decreed that kiwi troops would never come under direct British command, nor under British Medical support. In fact it has happened only twice since I think: the LRDG, and our deployment to Bosnia in mid 1990's. The NZ commander always has a direct link back to the govt at home.

No doubt the other Dominions do similar too.
Rob

[JackM]

It's getting of the starting subject a bit, but in Rob's support , the Australian case of Breaker Morant and his colleague Peter Handcock, made us aware of British methods and politics and we resolved never to again have troops serve directly under the British.

I was commander of an Australian detachment under a Commonwealth mandate in Uganda (we also had a Canadian medical team with us), in the early 80s.

Although we were under a British COL, I had a directive from Army HQ in Canberra that gave me final control over my team and responsibility for its safety.


Jack