'Monty' and his views of Great War Generals

[Simon Jones]

Montgomery was not a man to give credit to anyone else but he used the lessons that he had learnt as a staff officer in 1917-18 serving under those same generals and the negative lessons were far outweighed by the positive ones. I am studying the Battle of El Alamein at present and am struck by how much he conducted it as an all-arms bite and hold battle as developed 1917-18. The British failures in tactics and command in the Western Desert during 1941-42 were every bit as great as those during WW1 but with the difference, as has been pointed out, that the bulk of the German army was fighting in the east with barely more than three German divisions in the desert. The British victory in November 1942 came about because the 8th Army relearnt the lessons of WW1 and made proper use of concentrated and coordinated artillery which was integrated into the all-arms battle. In particular tanks were made to cooperate with infantry and artillery rather than try to fight their own battles according the misguided ideas of Liddell Hart and his followers. The fact that Montgomery made sure that his Army got to see him undoubtedly served an important purpose in restoring morale but I suspect he was also trying to create a cult of personality that would make it harder for Churchill to sack him if things did not go so well. The other reasons for the British victory have to do with air superiority, and superiority in manpower and equipment and it was Montgomery’s good fortune that his appointment coincided with the influx of US supplies.

[michaeldr]

I am studying the Battle of El Alamein at present

Simon,

In case you have not seen it, there is a good study of this battle by Prof Richard Holmes in his book 'Battlefields of the Second Word War' [bBC Worldwide Ltd., 2001, ISBN 0 563 53782 5] see pages 44-89

regards

Michael

[Simon Jones]

Thanks Michael

I would recommend the detailed 'Pendulum of War' by Niall Barr which includes perspectives on El Alamein and the fighting on the Western Front in WW1.

S

[phil andrade]

Surely the similarites between El Alamein, as Monty chose to fight it, and the attritional battles of 1917, were striking.

Phil.

[Petroc]

Simon,

The 'Cult of Personality' and the Media is a fascinating subject in its own right...Monty undoubtably used it to good effect, Haig less so (though he increasingly appreciated its importance as time went on); but surely every General is thus.! And, as institutions, do not regiments perpetuate the same?

[phil andrade]

Monty was a "show off" - no doubt about that !

Haig, as a personality, seems as dull as ditchwater : I might be doing him a terrible injustice.

At the moment I'm reading JFC Fuller's Grant and Lee, A study in Personality and Generalship. It's a truly compelling book, and certainly, as its title implies, has some bearing on our discussion. Lee was adored, and understood the pyschology of his soldiers, but he too comes over as humourless and remote. So, for that matter, does Grant. Sherman comes over as a live wire, with a natural repartee.

In fairness to the Great War commanders, their record, in respect of the cult of the personality, seems lacklustre: but who could excuse the shenanigans that Monty, Bradley and Patton - not to mention Clarke and Stillwell - engaged in a generation later ? In this regard, I reckon Haig outclassed them.

Phil.

[Robert Dunlop]

Haig, as a personality, seems as dull as ditchwater : I might be doing him a terrible injustice.

Yes, IMHO.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

Phil, I put in a quick placeholder. Haig was a professional soldier, who took his profession very seriously. He came from a background, both cultural and religious, that spurned explicit, let alone extravagant, displays of 'personality'. But this should not be taken to mean that he was 'dull as ditchwater'.

Robert

[Chris_Baker]

shenanigans ... Haig outclassed them.

I might be a bit dull myself this morning, but I do not understand that. Would you expand on it, please?

[phil andrade]

Thank Goodness that I put in that disclaimer, Robert !

In terms of professionalism, I reckon that Haig's conduct, when he was made subordinate to Nivelle, was admirable. In this regard, Monty's display of egocentric, smug self righteousness - I'm thinking of his reaction to the Ardennes crisis - stands him in a poor light.

Wellington disdained the "common touch". Of course, that was also, to a degree, a function of the times - the same goes for Haig, although, I reckon, even by the prevailing standards, he was a little too taciturn for comfort.

One anecdote impresses me : you might be more au fait with it than I am, Robert : at a dinner, people round the table were singing Plumer's praises, and suddenly Haig blurted out "..You would never have heard of him if I hadn't given him Harrington !"

This strikes me as an uncharacteristic outburst, and it also suggests that Haig was fed up with plaudits being lavished on others, when it was he himself, with his judicious awareness of his subordinates' strengths and weaknesses, who had engineered the structures necessary for success.

Both Haig and Monty are susceptible to caricature, and in both cases there are repellent features which commentators like to emphasise. My take on this is that Haig's foibles were more forgivable.

Phil.

[PhilB]

One peculiar habit of Haig`s I noticed (not present with Monty?) was his penchant for recording in his diary any flattering comments made to or about him. Maybe an Edwardian thing?

[phil andrade]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Sep 22 2009, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One peculiar habit of Haig`s I noticed (not present with Monty?) was his penchant for recording in his diary any flattering comments made to or about him. Maybe an Edwardian thing?

Seeking to re-assure himself, perhaps !

Phil.

[haworthnick]

I might be slightly off track here but I read somewhere that there were more brigadiers (I think) killed in WW1 then in WW2 I know this might be something to do with the static nature of the war but I think it goes some way to addressing the point of view that all high ranking Great War generals were safe and sound well behind the lines, please correct me if i'm wrong

Nick

[SteveMarsdin]

I might be slightly off track here but I read somewhere that there were more brigadiers (I think) killed in WW1 then in WW2 I know this might be something to do with the static nature of the war but I think it goes some way to addressing the point of view that all high ranking Great War generals were safe and sound well behind the lines, please correct me if i'm wrong

Nick

I don't know whether it's true or not, certainly there were several killed but I don't think it was particularly to do with the static nature of the conflict - in the opening encounters, with their "offensive a l'outrance", the French lost several high-ranking officers; for example, the 3e Division of the Colonial Corps lost Generals Rondony and Raffenel at Rossignol on 22/08/1914

[haworthnick]

Thankyou for that, though the book I was reading was specific to the BEF in both conflicts

[squirrel]

Try a look at the book "Bloody Red Tabs" by Frank Davies & Graham Maddocks 240 pages

Publisher: Pen & Sword Books Ltd; illustrated edition edition (17 Oct 1995)

Language English

ISBN-10: 0850524636

ISBN-13: 978-0850524635

This lists all the General Officer casulaties from WW1 - over 70 were killed or died IIRC.

[michaeldr]

To return to the original question here re the veracity of the statement

there is corroboration from Prof Travers in his 'The Killing Ground' which covers this in his chapter on Douglas Haig & GHQ

"The reason that GHQ staff did not visit the front in 1916 and 1917 seems to be partly because Haig had decreed in 1915, as GOC First Army, 'that no staff officer was to go nearer the trenches than a certain line'. This was because of the danger involved for difficult-to-replace staff officers. The order appears to have originated in October 1915 in GHQ under Sir John French who, after three of his divisional generals had been killed, said that such senior officers should not visit the front."

Today the GWF remembers one of the three generals referred to by Prof Travers:

Major-General Frederick Drummond Vincent WING, died 2nd October 1915.

The other two generals killed at about this time were Major-General Thesiger

and Major-General Capper

[healdav]

Monty was a "show off" - no doubt about that !

Haig, as a personality, seems as dull as ditchwater : I might be doing him a terrible injustice.

At the moment I'm reading JFC Fuller's Grant and Lee, A study in Personality and Generalship. It's a truly compelling book, and certainly, as its title implies, has some bearing on our discussion. Lee was adored, and understood the pyschology of his soldiers, but he too comes over as humourless and remote. So, for that matter, does Grant. Sherman comes over as a live wire, with a natural repartee.

In fairness to the Great War commanders, their record, in respect of the cult of the personality, seems lacklustre: but who could excuse the shenanigans that Monty, Bradley and Patton - not to mention Clarke and Stillwell - engaged in a generation later ? In this regard, I reckon Haig outclassed them.

Phil.

Just about all the people you mention took a part in WW1 and benefited from their experience in their doings in WW2.Patton, for example, was appalled by digging in due to his seeing the digging in mentality that led to the trenches. Read the only memoirs he left (a diary that has been edited) and you will see that he lays down dicta for his staff and others that every manager everywhere should take to heart, "Senior officers should visit junior officers and not the other way round. They are busier than you and you need to see the conditions they work under". Just imagine if the Secretary for Health actually spent real time in a casualty ward (not a two minute walk through and a press conference).

He even lays down that senior officers must drive forward and fly back. They must not be seen retreating. The diary is worth reading just for these things.

He was a real nutter, but knew how to win battles. What else do you want a general to do?

Monty was a show of, of course. But he took responsibility. "If I attack in September I shall lose. If I attack in October shall win. Do I attack in September or October". Not many people have ever said something like that.