Talk:Bernard Montgomery

Bias?

Seriously, this article seems to be far too biased in favor of Montgomery. -Joseph 02:14, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

It's about right in my opinion - no-one can agree on whether Montgomery was good or bad 203.217.27.103 23:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He wouldn't have won at Alamein without 2-1 numerical superiority over Rommel, and many of Monty's tanks were American M-3s and M-4s. Your welcome, Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.219.183 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though I believe Monty was one of the most effective generals ever to serve the German cause, that's just my personal opinion. The British are sure of his greatness, the Americans are sure of the opposite. The article can't take sides, it must only point out the controversy. It's fine as is. --A D Monroe III 13:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to have a pretty serious imbalance. A paragraph about his minor part in Ireland and two short sentences about his role in North Africa, a turning point in the second world war and the defining point of his career. Am I alone in thinking this is wrong? Leithp 01:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bias? Yes. I agree that this article shows Monty only in a favourable light. It especially ignores the mess he personally created, called Operation Market Garden. Of how he ignored the advise of his peers, ignored undisputed recon photos (claiming that there are no SS Divisions to deal with), and discarded intelligence gathered by the Dutch Resistance. Of how he was driven by his enormous ego to out-do Patton and the Americans in the European Theatre. And these are all documented fact. -- vslabs 20051007 1150 Zulu.

Documented facts should go in the article. Be bold! However, personal opinions have no place in the article, and really have no point even on this talk page. So you think he was a lame boob, or you think he's a hero -- who cares? If you can cite some respected authority detailing lame or or heroic actions, then by all means, improve the article! But a few unsourced comments on a talk page aren't going to change anybody's opinion, and our opinions don't matter anyway. --A D Monroe III 03:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The most recent edit adds some good stuff but also inserts a lot of POV statements. May I suggest it be restriucted to the facts and some of the speculation/opinion weeded out? DMorpheus 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll review what I wrote. My first take of the section about the Battle of the Bulge was that it was already very POV, so I tried to put a counter-argument without amending the original. In the end, the reader may have to make up their own mind from their own independent reading. My source was The Battle for the Rhine 1944 by Robin Neillands, 2005. To avoid clogging this page, DMorpheus could post his/ her concerns on [page]. Last thing: in my defence I added text that's critical of Monty. Folks at 137 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Added yet more stuff. Rather than double-guess the bits regarded as POV, I'll wait for particular comments as requested above. Although, what I wrote is based on sources. I do suspect that achieving a NPOV article might require the presentation of differing POVs. Folks at 137 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I really have to agree about the fan boy tone in this article. There is a certain breathlessness and wonder breathed into some of these passages- "Montgomery was determined not to fight until he could win a decisive victory..". Well gee whiz. That really distinguishes him from other commanders, who I suppose do something else? Who normally choose to fight battles with little preparation or hope of success? Ok. So what purpose does this kind of statement serve- it is virtually contentless. It merely serves as preface- he intends to do x, he achieves x. he intends to do y, he achieves y. It sets up this pattern of success after success when in fact this business was a lot of plodding back and forth. I mean hey- maybe we should move that sentence before Market Garden, or his other reverses. Then we would have an equally unfair anti-Monty article. Really- I understand hero worship and the folks being most motivated to write are those that love the guy but realistically he is not in the top 50 generals of all time, so let's not write this like he was. -Mak Thorpe 03:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think there are POV statements, you could actually do something about it and improve the article by removing or neutralising them. As to your particular point, the sentance is there to explain why Montgomery resisted Churchill's pressure for early action: if you can express it better, then have a go. History is littered with battles for which there was insufficient preparation, and Arnhem is a good example of that. Again, if you have some verifiable facts to put in then do so, though do watch the size of the article. MAG1 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Could the fact that he was one of five commanders not to be routed in the Battle of France be included?(Halbared 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Already there, first para. Second World War MAG1 15:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I read that, it seemed a bit nondesrcipt, since it was only done by a handful.(Halbared 18:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree, this definitely seems biased towards Montgomery. The Criticism of Generalship section has the negative traits, then basically tries to argues them away and sounds to me like original research. --Awiseman 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather that this section was not there precisely because it is almost inherently POV and people seem the need to either bury Montgomery or praise him to the rafters (see my comment below when it was added); on the other hand it is a valid point that this controversy is an important part of the person. It is possible to construct a summary of the criticism or otherwise (and the section does reference quite a few sources), and that is not original research. However, the central problem is that comments like Montgomery was 'too cautious' are inherently hand-waving, POV, and impossible to prove, as is the 'material' criticism (which I think is just silly as well). If they are to be included then the counter-arguments need to be as well, but I think they are inherently unresolvable. The military defeat at Arnhem and its consequences are an objective criticism, and they are dealt with head on.

It is not clear what you want to happen: the best thing would be the addition of extra material from verifiable sources.

It is perhaps worth adding that when complaining about bias, I think that this article does engage with criticism much more than most- see Omar Bradley, for example. To add a personal view, Montgomery was personally clearly a very odd man and could be very unpleasant and deeply insensitive and Arnhem was a bad defeat. These should be clearly stated in the article, and I think it does do that. However, the problem with the bias accusations is that he was also a very successful general: he was a success in France in 1940, he was largely reponsible for the expulsion of Rommel in North Africa from a position of imminent defeat, Sicily was a success, he was the principal planner for Overlord and the successful field commander in Normandy, he was a large part in bringing to a halt the German Ardennes offensive, and the crossing of the Rhine was a success as well. It's a pretty good record, and it's difficult to think of an equally good one from those of other western allied battlefield generals. MAG1 10:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean the opposite - there's a large section praising all of his various skills, then a shorter one with criticisms, with the criticisms all being argued against. Thus, an overly positive bias. --Awiseman 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So if there are more criticisms, then add them instead of posting about 'imbalance' - is it not possible there are simply more positive attributes than negative ones? Removing facts in the name of balance would be unencyclopedic - adding facts is almost always preferable.Michael Dorosh 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see the bias in those sections, I don't know what to tell you. The "positive" characteristics are pretty much what most generals should do - concern for human life, a builder of morale, a mentor - those are good, but hardly unique or unusual. --Awiseman 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these are unique to Monty as not all generals displayed these traits to the same degree. Unless you can prove otherwise. His ability as a trainer is mentioned in most histories - and in few accounts of his contemporaries (Patton, Bradley, Alexander, etc.).Michael Dorosh 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, no other generals ever had concern for human life, helped the morale of their troops, or mentored anybody. --Awiseman 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that they did, not complain that Montgomery's propensity for this is being cited using scholarly resources.Michael Dorosh 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

However, that section is overly positive, while, as I've said, the "criticisms" section mentions a couple negative things, then argues against them with statements like "It can be argued that Rommel was still dangerous, requiring careful movement...", "The realities of the conflict Britain was fighting must also be remembered...", "Furthermore, much of his apparent caution sprang from his regard for human life...", "But this charge is hard to maintain in a war during which material weight counted above almost all factors. It was a mass production war in every theatre, and the same "material" criticism of Montgomery must then need to apply to the great Russian commanders of the Eastern Front like Zhukov or Konev..." etc etc. The writer is giving caveats like crazy to try to disprove the criticisms. --Awiseman 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One man's caveat is another man's explanation. I agree that any explanations should be sourced rather than original research. I disagree it is "overly positive" until you can provide sources with additional negative material. We can only work with what is provided.Michael Dorosh 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It reads like it's overly positive, whether it's sourced or not. --Awiseman 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it reads the way the sources would have us read it. "Positive" is POV. I'll repeat this to you as it seems you're not understanding - if you feel there are significant negative aspects of his character that are not discussed, are relevant to the article, and can be proven, then they should be added to the article or discussed here, using reputable sources to back up your statements. We'll look forward to your constructive contributions.Michael Dorosh 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I'm no military scholar, certainly not enough to add scholarly citations. But as an observer, this article seems overly positive and tries too hard to negate the criticisms. It seems like hagiography. I'm hoping someone more knowledgable can address this, hopefully one of the regular editors. And other people agree with me here too, it's not just me thinking it's biased. --Awiseman 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with awiseman. The Critisism-part makes him look as Napoleon+Hannibal+Alexander the great X 3. The credit he gets for beating Rommel could be rewritten: He won by reckognizing his own shortcomings - thus not engaging in an "even battle" and instead using WWI-tactics with material and numerical superiority to beat an already beaten enemy (IMO Rommel was beaten by planes from Malta). When you look at it, Monty refused to attack at all, until he'd recieved all the supplies he wanted. He was never really under pressure the way the preceding generals were in North Africa. And in Sicily and Normandy he also got all he wanted (more or less) and was again kicking a man already down (the german army). Actually he seems really good at that. In the ending paragraphs of the ("negative") Critisism he is compared to generals such as Konev and Zhukov. It says something in the line of "if you can critizise Monty you must also critizise the russian generals". Is that supposed to be some sort of threat? The Russian generals are text-book examples of how (not?) to win a war when you outnumber your enemy in men and material. I say that neither Zhukov, Konev or Rokosovskij were "great" generals based on the facts of their superiority and even their many defeats even when facing inferiour numbers (Moscow in particular). Also (though this is a credit to Monty) Zhukov et. al. threw away human life.

Put Monty in Mansteins shoes or even Rommel in NA. Monty would've never been able to muster an offensive - he'd be sitting in Tunis still, waiting for supplies and reinforcements. At best I'd say Monty was a good organizer and a morale-builder. But that dosn't constitute greatness on the battlefiels.

For the record: I've never served, nor have any insights into what really goes on in staff-work or anything like that.--Nwinther 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noted, but will not effect what is placed in the article. If you can "prove" that El Alamein was won in Malta, you should present your sourced information in the article. Comparisons to other commanders seem somewhat beside the point in any event. As others have stated here - let's stick to the facts and let readers interpret them.Michael Dorosh 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did invade Italy from Carthage, and, unlike Napoleon, won in Egypt. But seriously, though your (Nwinther) opinions are as valid as anyone else's here (though I think you would have difficulty arguing yours about North Africa), your message illustrates the problems of this section. Everyone has their opinions, all different and all impossible to prove; so if we are to discuss quality of generalship (and I am not a fan) then we can only stick to the facts of people who perhaps do know what they are talking about, otherwise the article becomes ridiculous. To my mind, the job of a general is to win battles, and Montgomery did this (he was arguably the most successful western general), end of story: there are no style marks (though Montgomery did have this as well). The one time where he was fundamentally unsuccessful was Arnhem, and I think there is criticism and explanation of this. He was also an odd and often unpleasant man, and that is dealt with as well. What is interesting is why so many people feel the need to demonstrate that despite his success, his generalship was rubbish- from a hagiographic point of view compare this page with that of Omar Bradley, for example. If there is anyone who has a decent knowledge of the history of Montgomery's reputation, it would make a good para. As to the inevitability of the victory of large, well equipped armies, see what Alexander the Great's little band did to them . MAG1 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Leithp 06:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear the opposite of what. There is plenty of criticisms against him, especially his strange personality. As I said above, it seems to me that as a general he won nearly all his battles, and so there should be more positives than negatives, but I am not a fan of this sort of evaluation for anyone in an encylopaedia anyway- see below. Anyway, it doesn't matter, it's back to basics (again): if you have some verfiable facts that are not there, then stick them in. MAG1 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He was also a strong mentor figure, as pointed out in the article, a keen proponent of physical fitness, and knew much about training soldiers, not just directing operations. The cries of "bias" because he doesn't come off looking like the lisping hunch-back he is so often potrayed as in the movies are unfounded - and the solution is as MAG1 suggests - more information, not less, from verifirable sources.Michael Dorosh 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Joseph. If you look at many of Montgomerÿ's battles, he only ever won when he completely outnumbered the enemy. And the American generals resenting him but accepting his skills as a general? Without a direct quotation I find that hard to believe. According to most accounts they thought he was a bumbling idiot. This article has an extremly strong bias and should be completely reworked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparky4311 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with the above comment. Particularly, the sentence stating that American generals "resented him but accepted his skills as a general" either needs a citation, or should be removed. Otherwise, it seems like pure opinion. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For quotes, you could try reading the article, or here is one from Bradley's memoirs with respect to Normandy

He [Montgomery] exercised his Allied authority with wisdom, forbearance, and restraint. While coordinating our movements with those of Dempsey's, Monty carefully avoided getting mixed up in U.S. command decisions, but instead granted us the latitude to operate as freely and as independently as we chose. At no time did he probe into First Army with the indulgent manner he sometimes displayed among those subordinates who were also his countrymen. I could not have wanted a more tolerant or judicious commander. Not once did he confront us with an arbitrary directive and not once did he reject any plan that we had devised.

Montgomery was disliked, even loathed, by many (not just the Americans), but the problem was one of personal relations, not military competence- a bumbling idiot is not let loose with an army group. For the full story on Anglo-American military relations, the U.S. official history of the European theatre and though old, it is really very good indeed, and available online [1]. MAG1 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Just off the top of my head, I can think of two very well-respected US Generals who thought very highly of Montgomery, and whose views are documented - Walter Bedell Smith and James M. Gavin. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more respected American soldier than Gavin; he was not hesitant at all to voice his opinion of those he found incompetent (see the Frederick Browning article for an example); he thought Montgomery was quite good at his job. Also, I would venture to say that despite what Hollywood would have us all believe, Patton too respected his abilities. Try D'Este for quotes.

Now, as MAG1 wrote, whether they *liked* him or not is a different, and much less important question. DMorpheus 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

nwinther, i couldn't agree more with your statement that rommel was beaten by the planes in malta. michael dorosh, read "panzer battles" by von mellenthin, who served on rommel's staff in north africa. the first battle at alamein from monty's side, operation lightfoot failed to drive the germans back. it wasn't until the germans ran out of gas (thus their tanks were immobile targets) that they were beaten back. had the afrika korps had sufficient gasoline, north africa would've turned out very differently. to say monty was successful at normandy is a travesty. the brits hunkered down on the beach head and let the americans do the tough fighting in the hedgerows, and when the americans had the germans partially surrounded, let them escape by not moving in to close the gap, thus prolonging the war on the western front. he's very much like zhukov and koniev, only being able to win with a vast superiority in numbers and supplies, and not even then consistently. and to say monty was critical in stopping the german offensive in the bulge is atrocious. it was the paratroopers of the 101st holding bastogne (the critical road/rail nexus in the region) and the various combat engineers blowing key bridges that stopped the germans. that, and (recurring theme) they ran out of gas for their tanks. as for his record of being undefeated in france in 1940, i'm not knowledgeable enough to make claims. however, it may be because the main german attack went through french forces and bypassed the english, who were on the border with the low countries, and then let to escape by hitler, the bumbling idiot. that's just my opinion. the only allied force that comes to mind as being even moderately successful in the 1940 campaign was the so-called frank-force, commanded by MG harold franklyn, that attacked rommel at arras. and as far as i know, monty had no part in that. 69.133.157.123 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please supply more references. The comments on Normandy seem hopelessly wide of the mark - the mass of armour (incl SS) faced the Anglo-Canadians (as intended) and that assisted the breakout in the west (it's called coordination) - Bradley refers to this several times.

At Falaise, the orders to allow a gap were partly because Bradley was unsure of Patton's expertise in that situation and partly to allow air power free range and avoid "friendly fire" - which had been a problem. Bradley wrote: "This decision to stop Patton was mine alone." and "I doubted his [Patton] ability to hold it ... the enemy could have broken through..." and "... he's not used to having 3 or 4 German divisions hit him". And it allowed Patton to pursue the Germans - a strength.

Battle of the Bulge was primarily an American show - both the initial mistakes and the eventual recovery - but read the quotes: British units sealed off the German attack route and American units concentrated on holding and throwing back the enemy, although as you point out, their armour was immobile (and many German units retired in good order). More refs, more facts please and if they're good, add them to the article. Then perhaps we can subject all the Allied commanders to similar critical analysis. Folks at 137 08:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Two years ago this article see-sawed between extreme character assassination and extreme adulation. It is far more balanced today. I'd like to see similar critical analysis as the comment above says, of all the Allied commanders, but some are happy to see anothers sacred cow sacrificed while fanatically protecting their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.180.163 (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

moved to correct choronological order

Without question the article is biased!

But which is to be expected after all, inasmuch as it was obviously written by a British person, as betrayed by the spelling, grammar and sentence formation. In my view, his comparison to Wellington and Marlboro must surely have those military giants revolving in their graves at lightspeed.

The only question I have is why "the neutrality of this article is disputed" disclaimer has not been thus far appended?

In contrast, Omar Bradley's unbiased assessment of Montgomery in "A Soldier's Story," written by a humble, self-effacing man with no axe to grind is quite enlightening, and gives the numerical specifics of the supply situation at that time. But even before his vanity, arrogance and personality quirks had alienated not only the American generals, but also the majority of the British ones as well, Monty was regarded by his peers as slightly above mediocre, a commander who took shrewd advantage of the overwhelming amount of American weaponry and supplies afforded him courtesy of Mr. Roosevelt.

And not just Bradley. For when such a vast array of Generals contemporary to Montgomery -- again, even the various British Generals and Marshals -- who knew and fought alongside him at that time, in consensus say the salient features about him were that, 1) he was overly cautious to a fault, 2) he was more afraid of losing a battle than winning one, and that, 3) he would never engage the enemy without at least a 2-1 advantage in manpower, 4) with an even greater ratio in weapons and materiel, well, 5) that speaks volumes, doesn't it?

But, the British at that time were in desperate need of a battlefield hero to lift their spirits, and so you have "The Hero of El Alamein" myth. A close look at the specifics of the Nort African campaign bear out the fact that this victory was won more due to the Allies overabundance of resources in direct proportion to Rommel's lack thereof. 69.111.104.40 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC) jfblodi, 12:12, 2009 Jan 7.

The "spelling, grammar and sentence formation" should not be the subject of criticism, because that is governed by policy on style. As for the rest, if there are valid criticisms, they will have been written about by reliable third party sources and shouldn't be too difficult to find. --Rodhullandemu 20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous, have you read the extensive three-volume biography of Montgomery by Nigel Hamilton in which he draws upon the positive testimony of dozens of British and American generals, who would certainly turn over in their graves at your gross generalizations.

As to your points 1) how was he overly cautious? It's all very well for you to say he was but I don't see your evidence (or your name for that matter). 2) He still won battles though didn't he. 3) Somehow I don't think he engaged with a 2-1 superiority in 1940 in Belgium. At any rate, you'd have to be a pretty stupid soldier to fight a battle until you knew you had a good chance of winning it. 5) Volumes of hot air. When you yourself have some constructive and well-sourced additions to make to the article, do come back. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

Is there any chance to move this article to some shorter name? I don't think we need to put the whole titulature in the article name, Bernard Law Montgomery would be just as good and it would definitely not stick out in all lists and categories (check Category:Recipients of Virtuti Militari for reference). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:29, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Many of them are like that eg: Archibald Percival Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell and William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. Including the ones who deserve it like: John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and ones who don't like Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig. Trouble is that one can not just put Duke of Wellington because there is more than one and althought you and I may not care, see Talk:Duke of Wellington for thoses who do! Philip Baird Shearer 00:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The title follows the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). If you don't like the convention, you need to get consensus to change it, perhaps by presenting your argument at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Gdr 03:09, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't follow the convention. The title was awarded after the war, people recognize him exclusively by his name. It is rare for anyone to even know what his title was other than general. This fits the explicit exclusion for individuals whose title was awarded after their service, and who where known exclusively by their untitled name. Montgomery fits both cases, though either would be sufficient.

" EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington")."

Like the cases of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, Betrand Russell etc who were known exclusively by their untitled names, the names of the articles do not carry the titles. I personally have no strong feelings about Montgomery one way or the other. I like Bertrand Russell, Elton John and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. But the titles of all those articles do not carry the excess baggage.

Unless there is some substantive reason to the contrary, this article's name should be brought into conformance with wikipedia naming standards Mak 05:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More on 8th Army

Can I suggest that something be added to cover his takeover of the 8th Army from Auchinleck and his relationship with his superior in North Africa, General Alexander? Also I thought that the article was anti-Monty, which in reference to the other comment that it was pro-Monty probably means you've got it right. Is it also possible to include a reference from Montgomery to this page. I'm a Wikipedia newbie so sorry if I'm retreading old ground. Leithp 18:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We definitely need more about North Africa, that was where he became Churchill's favourite. It is also a very controversial part of his claim to fame. Dabbler 02:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irish Service

I'm not sure that there's much evidence of anti-Irish "bigotry" on the part of Montgomery other than the existing ethos on the part of then Officers of the British Empire.

There were atrocities commited by both sides during his tenure but his biographer Nigel Hawthorne also points out that Montgomery was a realist about there eventually being an independent Irish Republic.

Montgomery himself was of Protestant Irish descent and his family gave up considerable property to the new Republic.

I'm probabably leaving myself open to flaming here, but that whole paragraph seems dubious. It seems reasonable to include a reference to Montgomery's service in Ireland, but the references to "Crown forces" and "burning of homes and businesses, torture, and murder" seems to be POV. These things may have happened, I don't know enough to comment, but given that they don't appear on the Anglo-Irish War page why should they appear here? Leithp 10:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Having loooked into this, I've found that the section on his Irish service was added by 159.134.233.73, whose only other contributions were to the RUC and the British Army where he made similar edits alleging brutality. This loooks a bit too much like an agenda. I've taken a large part of this paragraph out to make it NPOV. It might still be worthwhile covering his time in Ireland in greater detail if someone has a good source of information on this. Leithp 11:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

After this paragraph reappeared I left a message on Lapsed Pacifist's talk page on 15th June asking for references and sources for this, as I've never read anything on Mongomery's involvement in this anywhere else. That's not to say I'm saying it didn't happen, just that I view this with a bit of suspicion. I haven't had a response, although the user has been active elsewhere, so I'm going to remove those parts of the paragraph that appear to be POV. Leithp 09:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery was responsible for the British army in Cork, where they (a force that were there ostensibly to restore law and order) killed unarmed prisoners and other suspects, and looted and destroyed towns. The British government was aware of this and privately encouraged it to cow a population they believed were supporting and hiding the IRA. These activities were not confined to Cork, but they began there and were most prevalent there. He was also active in promoting black propaganda. All this in what was nominally his own country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Just because Montgomery's biographers have chosen to ignore or whitewash this episode in his career, is no reason for you to follow suit.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Referring to Wikipedia articles which you yourself have edited and in one case provided the entire relevant content does not strike me as being very honest reference material. Can you point to any other references for your assertions? Sorry forgot to sign. Dabbler 15:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much of the article on the Essex Regiment was an education for me. I have Googled terms I thought relevant to find the references you sought, but was unable to come up with a non-Irish source, which I would have liked. I believe this is because the Anglo-Irish conflict is not of much concern to many outside Ireland. The same applies to books on the subject, many of which are written by ex-IRA men.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I looked into Montgomery's Irish service following Lapsed Pacifist's comments. I have edited the page accordingly and left this message on his talk page:

I assumed good faith on your part and looked into Montgomery's record in Ireland at the central reference library here in Edinburgh in order to got some more details. He wasn't a "commanding officer" he was a staff officer, something quite different. Also his behaviour seems to have been generally decent if ruthless towards the IRA. Tom Barry, an IRA leader, descibed him as efficient enemy who behaved "with great correctness". I think you're mixing him up with Arthur Percival, whose tactics were quite different from Montgomery's. In fact Montgomery seems to have been in favor of British troops evacuating the area. I struggled to find Irish History books that referred to him, but for the record my two main references are:

Peter Hart- The IRA & Its Enemies- Violence and Community in Cork 1916-1923

Nigel Hamilton- The Full Monty- Montgomery of Alamein 1887-1942

I'll edit the article accordingly.

Leithp 15:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Leithp 15:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would advise you to read some online reviews of Hart's book before referencing it. If you cannot find any, get back to me. A book called "The Green Flag" by Robert Kee is the only study of Irish nationalism I know of that was not written by an Irish author. While I have not read it myself (I have read his account of life as a POW, and enjoyed it), it has been recommended to me and I presume it would cover the Anglo-Irish War and give a different viewpoint than that offered by most Irish historians. I have read Barry's book (a good while ago, admittedly) and seem to remember Montgomery being portrayed in less than the flattering light you suggest. However, I will reread it as my memory may be faulty. I'm confused at your reference to seeking "revenge". Was his cousin killed in Donegal? If he was I can't see how Montgomery would have been in a position to avenge him. I made some minor edits, I don't believe they're contentious.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peter Hart was one of the authors on the list of references that you provided, what's the problem? Hart is a Canadian, and would have approached the subject from an outsider's viewpoint. He worked in both Dublin and Belfast prior to publishing the book, in Dublin he worked under one of your other references David Fitzpatrick. I read some of the online reviews and they seemed to generally be very positive. The only controversial aspect relates to the Kilmichael ambush, which has nothing to do with what I referenced. The reference to "revenge", which I probably didn't phrase very well, is to whether Montgomery might have felt a sense to avenge the death of his cousin, who was one of the eleven intelligence officers killed in Dublin prior to Bloody Sunday. He might have felt that (although that would be speculation), but it doesn't seem to have affected his actions. Leithp 08:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

See [2]. Also Google the names of Peter Hart and Meda Ryan, who published a similar book around the same time. There was a kind of debate, a lot of it online or in newspapers, between the two for a while. Your reference to Donegal seems to imply that there were parts of Ireland that were peaceful at the time.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but no-one seems to be accusing Peter Hart of bias. Also Montgomery never had direct command of troops in Ireland, he was a Staff officer, so it seems excessive to blame him for the actions of the "black & tans". Particularly since he only arrived in 1921. As far as the reference to Donegal goes, I agree that the sentence is a bit clunky but I wanted to get over to an uninformed reader (who might not be familiar with Ireland and Donegal) that Montgomery's family home was embroiled in the conflict. How would you suggest it should be phrased? Leithp 09:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Drawing the wrong conclusions from the statistics, relying on newspaper and magazine "accounts of the time" that came straight from Dublin Castle, definitely. Bias, well, that's a subjective judgement. I don't blame him for the actions of the Black and Tans, but I am interested in exactly what his responsibilities were. You should include his disenchantment with government policy in the article.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As yoou suggested I have added a sentence on Montgomery's view on the withdrawal of the army. This is taken from a letter to Percival quoted in Nigel Hamilton's biography. Essentially the letter says that to win the conflict would have required a degree of brutality that would be unacceptable in a democracy and that he therefore agreed with Lloyd George's position and the formation of the Irish Free State. This was not, I imagine, Percival's view.

The role of a staff officer (which doesn't even seem to have an entry in Wikipedia) is essentially an administrative one. A typical example of his role would be the briefing memo he wrote for arriving troops, describing the situation in Ireland (I took the "beyond reproach" quote from it). I can't find a really clear description of the role on the internet, but this one is okay (if a bit vague) [3].

I've got to say this is all quite interesting, this isn't an area of history that I've ever read much on, so this is all quite new to me. I may go and edit the Lloyd George article as I notice that it doesn't even mention the formation of the Free State. I tell a lie, it does seem to mention it, albeit very briefly.

The paragraph as it stands seems quite comprehensive, but are you happy with the content and wording? I'd like to wrap this up and move on to something else if we can agree. Leithp 18:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy. If I learn more I'll let you know.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing untoward seems to have happened to the Montgomery property in Donegal. Bernard's parents, Henry died there in 1932, Maud in 1949, when the property was sold to become a hotel. MAG1 22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Law Montgomery

Montgomery believed in pre-planning battles, and then letting the plan run its course. This only works when you have overwhelming force. In my opinion, his record cannot be defended rationally.

The US General James Gavin, commander of the 82nd Airborne, worked closely with Montgomery and had lots of good to say about him. I think Gavin knew a thing or two about being a General. DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He took over from a general who was fired for not attacking, in North Africa, then set back that general's planned date of attack. In his memoirs, Churchill says that it was impossible to replace him right after appointing him, so they had to stick with him.

He was equally slow in Sicily, letting the German forces escape through the port he was supposed to take, and again in Normandy, falling far behind his stated plans and spending weeks instead of hours taking Caen. At the battle of the bulge, Patton was forced to take on the Germans alone, and was done while Montgomery was getting ready.

The US 1st Army was doing the majority of the fighting in the bulge, and was not under Patton. DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I simply can't imagine what anyone who understands generalship could say about Monty. The best couter-example to his way of fighting was in Market Garden, where there was nobody really directing the battle because it was supposed to unfold according to plan.

I should think that the sweet-natured article now posted might have at least a paragraph summarizing these reservations about his record.

Asking why Montgomery too so long to take Caen has the same answer as to why it took Patton so long to take Metz - the Germans had dug in with artilliery and armor, and were difficult to dislodge. Somehow the British also managed to rack up more casualties than the americans in taking Sicily - perhaps they were facing heavier opposition in the eastern side of the island, the evacuation route the germans and italians were trying to protect? 203.173.27.53 08:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A better critique of Montgomery's action in Sicily is how he changed the plan. Under the original plan US 7th Army was to land near Palermo and drive east towards Messina. Monty forcefully suggested that the 7th instead land near Gela in the south, thus placing the two Allied armies side-by-side. Alexander should be faulted for allowing the change to take place. Under the original plan it is possible the two armies might have converged on Messina faster, trapping more German forces. DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

At one point before the Bulge, Eisenhower had removed quite a few divisions from Patton and some other American Corps to pad Montgomery in his ever upcoming northern thrust which turned out to be the failed Market Garden. Patton was reduced to 2-3 divisions

That's quite an exaggeration. DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

and was still moving a hundred miles a week through France until he basically outran his supply lines. Meanwhile, Montgomery was sitting on 14 divisions doing NOTHING and said he couldn't formulate an attack until February. The Germans crushed through the weak line at the Ardennes in December. Monty couldn't mobilize ANYTHING from that many troops to swing to Bastogne and close the Bulge? They were sitting there doing NOTHING! Any general will tell you that a stationary army is a dead army. Fixed positions do nothing but let the enemy know where you are at and they will go around you. That is what happened with the Ardennes and Monty wasn't capable of thinking on his feet fast enough to do anything about it.

Montgomery was not in command of the US forces holding the area that became the Battle of the Bulge. It was largely the US VIII Corps, First Army, 12th Army Group. If the deployment was faulty blame Hodges or Bradley. I am not arguing the deployment was faulty, by the way, but, good or bad, it had nothing to do with Montgomery.DMorpheus 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All of this just further reinforces the fact that Monty was too calculated and needed too much preperation to accomplish his goals of micromanaging the battles.

Fascinating. But this isn't a forum to discuss the merits or otherwise of Montgomery and Patton, this is for discussing the article. If you have anything to say that isn't in the article, why not add it? You can also sign and date your comments on the talk page using four tildes ~~~~ . Leithp June 28, 2005 20:37 (UTC)

' until he basically outran his supply lines...Any general will tell you that a stationary army is a dead army.' Actually, any General will tell you an army without supplies is a dead army. As for the 'needed too much preperation to accomplish his goals of micromanaging the battles'. How about D-Day? This was essentially Montgomery's plan, and it was precisely because of his insistence for detail and proper supply that it succeeded at all. But of course, most 'Patton was great, Montgomery was slow' people actually have no idea that it was Montgomery who was the major planning force behind Operation Overlord. Furthermore, Montgomery had criticised the defense of the Ardennes Forest before 'The Battle of the Bulge' for being too thin.

In my opinion, his record cannot be defended rationally. He took over from a general who was fired for not attacking, in North Africa, then set back that general's planned date of attack. In his memoirs, Churchill says that it was impossible to replace him right after appointing him, so they had to stick with him.

The person who 'fired' the General for not attacking was Churchill - Churchill had recently halved the available forces in North Africa by sending 50% of them on an ill-fated attempt to support Greece - which was a failure. He then blamed the Generals for the lack of success in the desert and fired a number of them in quick succession. (at least a third of all British tank losses were due to simple mechanical breakdowns, often because of such simple things as lack of air filters which had not yet arrived - the need for which Churchill seemed incapable of understanding - or the absence of spare parts) If one reads books about the Desert War written by people who were there you find that the things they found most depressing before the arrival of Montgomery was the poor Staff Work, and the abysmal state of the supply situation, ie. logistics. (one A9 Cruiser Squadron had a full inventory of spares - for the A10 Cruiser). Once Montgomery took over he shook things up and the troops started getting what they needed, but this still took time and the reason Montgomery set back that general's planned date of attack was because his forces were not yet ready to do what they were being requested to do and he would not be cowed by Churchill into starting an attack which he was sure would fail - which is what the previous Generals had in fact done.

Churchill liked to think of himself as a military genius and strategist, but he wasn't - the words Gallipoli and Singapore come to mind as examples of his 'genius' (along with the sending of the Prince of Wales & Repulse to impress the Japanese), and when you read the memoirs of various high-ranking Cabinet members, Army, Royal Navy and RAF officers, you realise just how much of their time was wasted in trying to dissuade him from reckless and ultimately pointless enterprises. Ian Dunster 16:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Churchill's little Greek Campaign was over well before Gazala. It was the Auk's incompetence (Ooh, looky, we can stop the Germans by putting nasty fortifications to block their way in the North. Who cares about the open desert to the south?) that forced the 8th Army back to Alamein.

I love the way a bunch of encyclopedia editors who have never fought a battle in their lives sit around treating some of the most successful military commanders in the world as if they were idiots and slinging words like 'incompetence' around. Get real. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The sending of British reinforcements to Greece was late 1940, and stymied Wavell's "Battleaxe" offensive. The botch of Gazala is generally taken to have been the fault of Ritchie, who is widely thought to have been overpromoted commanding the Eighth Army, but who after demotion later commanded a corps in Europe 1944-5, perfectly adequately as far as I know. It would probably be fairer to the Auk to say that he was a poor picker of men (Alan Cunningham, Ritchie) but actually did a decent job when he had to take personal command of Eighth Army during Crusader and Gazala. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.192.0.10 (talk • contribs).

Why is there no mention of the Falaise Pocket and the territorial aspect of that battle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oddnews (talk • contribs).

a humourous story

monty detested drinking and smoking and wouldnt allow anyone do either near him he was having a conference at his HQ churchill eisenhower and all the top allied commanders at the time the great majority of people smoked but monty stated not in my HQ then the guests of honour arrived the king and queen the king was a heavy smoker and lit up since he was the king and the 1 person monty couldnt forbid from doing anything as soon as the king lit up churchill and the others lit their cigarettes and cigars and monty was forced to give the speech in a plume of tobacco smoke Bouse23 12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The custom at British dinner parties until very recently was that smoking was not allowed until the monarch's health had been drunk, often late in the evening. If the King was there in person, I guess he took priority.

Intelligence in Monty's WWII

It is not true that "Monty was one of the few Allied commanders with access to Ultra information'. During Torch and the invasion of Crete, Ultra information was available to local commanders (Freyburg in Crete and Eisenhower in Torch) and was unfortunately discounted. In addition, Monty is claimed to have been indiscreet on occasion regarding the information he got from Ultra (eg, before El Alemain he is said to have publicly claimed to 'know what the Jerries had for breakfast') thus risking the secret that Enigma had been broken. Furthermore, his entire North African campaign was informed throughout about Rommel's logistics situation and to an extent his tactical planning via Ultra.

This article reflects none of this, and is misleading in the mention made of Ultra and its effect in Monty's campaigns. Someone who is informed about Monty should make revisions to reflect at least some of this information. ww 20:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ultra information was available to local commanders (Freyburg in Crete and Eisenhower in Torch) and was unfortunately discounted

The local commanders were told the ghist of the Ultra information but they were not told of it's source or reliability, therefore they were somewhat suspicous of the information and regarded it as just another form of intelligence no better (or more reliable) than any other. Montgomery was fully 'let in' on the Ultra secret and Bletchley Park before El Alamein, and knew it was an unimpeachable source. He was therefore in a position to know rather than guess. The only US General to be fully briefed on Ultra was Eisenhower (when he became Supreme Allied Commander before D-Day - Ramsay and Leigh-Mallory already knew), neither Bradley nor Patton had any idea about it, and not informing them was a US decision. Montgomery's actions (and criticism of them) need therefore to be judged in this light. Ian Dunster 12:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery and the film

A line on, or a link to the film 'I was Monty's Double'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.85.15.85 (talk • contribs) .

Operation: Market Garden

How did Montgomery felt about Operation: Market Garden when it failed?

He never admitted it as such. He claimed it was "90%" successful. He did, however admit to some errors, a most unusual thing for him, especially given that he was still angling for overall command of a single thrust into Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.250.64 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ultimate proof of Monty's hypocrisy. Market Garden even to a bumbling fool is considered a total failure on the part of the Allies. Thousands got massacred and the whole operation was a failure. The point of Market Garden is capturing all the bridges OR NOT AT ALL. Saying that it's 90 percent successful spits of insult regarding the thousands dead for a failed operation which he directed. If anything Monty is an extremely overrated general. The British are just overrating Monty to make them look good because the reality is in WW2 it was the Americans who bore the brunt of the fighting, are the primary minds in its operation and the Brits are used only as sideline players.

Style issue discussion

There is a discussion going on here whether or not the first sentence of a biographical article should contain the full name of the individual and include any post nominal initials (eg. VC, KCB, OBE) or whether these should be relegated to later in the article. I have tried to point out that this is standard style and part of their full titles but there are “readability” concerns. This arose because of the Richard O’Connor featured article and one possible solution, a biobox, is now in place on that page. Please make your opinions known.Dabbler 12:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Favours in the beetroot fields

Can anyone find any quote for this that isn't linked to the band British Sea Power? Is it something they made up for their song and attributed to Montgomery? Dabbler 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, as I though it looked like crap. I may be wrong and it might be legitimate, though. Leithp 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Could this come from Monty's address/order to the troops of the 3rd Division in France, of which he was almost sacked and have to apologise it. This was mentioned in Desert Generals by Correlli Barnett, but without any specific details. --Ekeb 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. He was criticised because his order was pragmatic (it concentrated on preventing soldiers getting VD rather than having sex), not weird. MAG1 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I take the above comment back: there might be some truth in it. The full order is in Brian Montgomery's book, if anyone has it. MAG1 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I have expanded the article. It became a bit too long so I have been bold and done away with most descriptions of battles or internal American military politics as they can be found on other pages, and concentrated on details about the man himself. The plan of the article is a narrative followed by a section for controversy (though some of it seems a bit handbags at dawn to me). According to ODNB, Montgomery presented a 90 day plan for the Normandy battle before the invasion that mirrored what happened. If you have a verifiable source that says he said something different, then please restore the controversy. Similarly, the bit about the Scheldt was vague (not mentioned in the good article on the subject) and looked like armchair generalship; however, I could, of course, be wrong. The article is now 30K long, so it won't take a lot of additions. MAG1 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Much as I applaud the changes (an improved flow), I have some quibbles. 1) The politicking between the generals still needs more space: Monty nearly lost his job at one point and it also shines a light on the man's character. I suggest there should at least be links to those articles that you mention that add substance to this aspect. 2) 21st Army Group's failure to open up the Scheldt immediately Antwerp was captured is referred to widely, as is the escape across the Scheldt of the German 15th Army. This is legitimate criticism of Monty's performance. OK, I'm guilty of "armchair generalship" (thank God not the real thing), but Ike was not pleased at the time and the supply situation was a huge factor for the Allies. The Battle of the Scheldt article, good as it is about the course of that battle, could give the impression that German troops were dug in when Antwerp was taken, which is not what I've read elsewhere. Folks at 137 23:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There's something seriously wrong with this article as it currently cuts off at later life in both internet explorer and firefox. Arniep 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, unclosed reference. Still not quite right, but too late to deal with now; however, the tail of the article now can be seen. This probably deals with your first point, Folks at 137. As to your second, fine, but specifically what did Montgomery do/ not do? MAG1 00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 1st point covered (but maybe there's sufficient for a separate article!)! 2nd point: I think there was sin of omission. Monty was known for his appreciation of clear orders and "grip", ie, ensuring that things were done as ordered. It seems fair, therefore, to apply this criterion to him. The need to clear the Scheldt promptly and the opportunity to do it relatively cheaply was missed by someone - either Monty overlooked it himself or he did not ensure that the Cdn Army were on the ball. A point of "grip" must be to eliminate errors of omission. Have a look at Max Hastings' Armageddon, chapter 1; wherein there is a description of Anglo-Canadian inaction after Antwerp was taken. Belgian Resistance warned of the importance of nearby bridges, they were ignored and the bridges were blown. The local British divisional commander had not been informed of the importance of these bridges nor of the probable direction of advance. Specifically, I would argue that Monty should have been aware of Antwerp's importance and ensured that Crerar and his subordinates acted (and were capable of doing so), especially since there were doubts about Crerar's effectiveness. A quote from Monty: "a bad mistake - I underestmated the difficulty of opening up the approaches to Antwerp ... I reckoned that the Canadian Army could do it while we were going for the Ruhr. I was wrong."

On a different point: given the arguments over Monty's "delays" during the Battle of the Bulge, here's a comment by Manteuffel: "The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough." Praise from an adversary. Folks at 137 10:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the recent edit improves the overall flow of the article and restores some needed balance. However, the Normandy section is simply not in accord with the facts; the older version was better IMO. DMorpheus 15:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks at 137, I've had a go at incorporating your material. It'd be great if you would reference your quotations.

DMorpheus, fine- but what are the facts. For me, the key thing is what Montgomery said at the presentations at St Pauls School? Hamilton is explicit, and it looks to me that Montgomery predicted what actually happened in principle: an attritional battle on the left and eventual break out on the right. The time scale was about right as well. If you have a verifiable alternative report, then stick it in. Analysing what was said and meant during the battle is problematic owing to the politicking and the unreliability of Montgomery's report up the chain of command (as discussed in the articles). I think, because of the length of the article, unless it is really important or illustrative of a larger point, a discussion of individual operations won't fit in.

The article is still a wafer long, so I have been trying to keep it short and remove repetitions, apologies if I have stepped on any toes. Again, for this reason I think it might be best if battle descriptions are left to the battle articles. I also stuck the right honourable back: the fact he was a privy councillor is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. MAG1 00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I found the Manteuffel quote in chapter 13 of The Battle of the Bulge - Hitler's Final Gamble, Patrick Delaforce (2004). Delaforce doesn't give his own source.

Can't find the version of the Monty quote on the Scheldt that I quoted but there's a fuller version in chapter 7 of The Battle for the Rhine 1944 by Robin Neilland. This is referenced to Monty's Memoirs. The sense is the same.

Try this page: [4] Not for the thumbnail biography, but for the quotes that follow. Folks at 137 10:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the best assessment of Monty's generalship in Normandy is found in Carlo D'Este's Decision In Normandy. There's little question that the original plan was *not* followed. That's not a criticism of Montgomery, by the way. Plans often don't work out. A great commander will then improvise a new solution. Montgomery did that. DMorpheus 13:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Monty's problem was that, for some reason, he couldn't bring himself to admit that his plans had not been perfect and perfectly executed and recognise that his ability to improvise when faced with the plan going awry was just as commendable as producing a perfect plan in the first place. Dabbler 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely one of the points D'Este makes. It is unfortunate that Montgomery made quite an effort to 'spin' (as we say in the US) the story to show that all had gone exactly according to plan. It is no blemish on his record to acknowledge that it didn't. But he himself seems not to have thought about it that way. DMorpheus 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, DMorpheus, thanks for comments, I agree with you totally. My concern about Normandy was that some like to wheel out some strange theories (such as those you dealt with above) not based on the facts, so I thought it would be best if things were as explicit as possible. I think what is relevant is that the broad outline of what happened was envisaged (especially the length of the battle). Hope what is there now is ok. The failure to admit that something has not gone exactly to plan seems to have been a generic problem for Montgomery, so I have put it in the character and controversy section. For my part, I certainly don't mind Montgomery's blemishes being on display, provided they actually existed. MAG1 00:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Monty's plan to retake Ireland

Anyone have any details on this? Its mentioned in Fisk, Robert. I'm asking because I mentioned it in Plan W.

Fisk says around 1939-1940 Montgomery was involved in creating a plan to retake Cobh [Cork harbor]. He was to do this using the British 3rd division so that the harbour could be used as a naval base for the British anti-submarine war in the Atlantic. Is it possible any Monty experts know about this? Fisk P.241 Robert Fisk, "In Time of War" (Gill and Macmillan) 1983 ISBN 0717124118 Thanks Fluffy999 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fluffy999, fancy meeting you here. I have read nothing about this, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that Montgomery and the 3rd Division were otherwise occupied in France until Dunkirk (beginning of June 1940).MAG1 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I followed you over here :) OK I will look into it a bit more. Thanks Fluffy999 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not impossible, though it wasn't about recapturing Ireland. In his war histories Churchill says that agreements apparrently existed to allow the British Navy to use ports in the Republic of Ireland in the event of emergency, but the ROI refused. This would have made a huge difference to the effectiveness of the British Navy in the Battle of the Atlantic. Churchill writes that in his opinion the British would have been justified, both legally and morally, in enforcing these agreements with military force. Probably fortunately he was persuaded otherwise. DJ Clayworth 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is actually quite a large topic; however, though Britain and the US did pressurise Ireland over access to the ports and Churchill was not averse to obtaining the ports by force, he never had support from the cabinet, other allies, or public opinion. There were no definite moves to occupy bits of Ireland, so if there were any plans they would have been coningency plans. While on plans though, there was a view that the UK would help defend Ireland against German invasion, and I should think there would also have been some planning towards this, though again nothing definite. Unless someone has found something concrete, I don't think any of this affects this article. One for pedant's corner: southern Ireland was a dominion, not a republic, at the time. MAG1 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest expansion

What do people feel about the latest expansion by Enriquecardova? I think it is good stuff, a genuine contribution, and well written, but I do have some criticisms:

1. it is not well integrated with the rest of the article and does read like an essay stuck on the end of a biography;
2. as a result, it repeats alot of material already in the article;
3. it badly needs some inline references as it is difficult to distinguish what are the opinions of the author (which perhaps should not be there if any have been inserted) and what comes from verifiable sources;
4. the article is too long already;
5. on a more general point, it is perhaps best to avoid opinions on who was a 'good' general, king, president or whatever and keep to the facts otherwise we end up with unwieldy articles full of NPOV, edot wars &tc &tc, and not much that is useful for the general reader.

I would propose integrating any extra material with the rest of the article (which I don't mind having a go at), but what do others think? MAG1 21:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair criticisms.

1. I added on that last "Assessment as a Military Commander" section to disentangle some of the military aspects of Monty's work from the personality issues, which are covered in the "Character and Controversy" section and elsewhere. I felt personality aspects such as Monty's sometimes boastful pronouncements might overshadow the military perspective. Was Monty too slow or was he simply faced with the realities of war? Partisans on either side will never agree. There is so much controversy on this fellow I felt a separate area would be useful to clearly analyze the pros and cons using a balanced approach. Burying them in the text gets into the POV controversy again. Admittedly the summing up is not a perfect job;
2. Of course the section could be integrated, but then again so could the "Character and Controversy" section which contains details on his clashes with Eisenhower, his British colleagues and the Americans, etc. Some of theseitems could (and probably should) be integrated into the text but with a character like Monty having a separate "Character and Controversy" section (minus some parts) seems reasonable. Just as there is a "Character" section, I felt a stepping back, a big picture view is necessary to keep the military angle in mind, more so, because Monty himself had very definite ideas about warfighting. These need to be examined on their own merits.;
3. You are correct about more inline references being needed which I will add, such as links to other wiki articles on Normandy, El Alamenin, etc;
4. As to claims about the best generals, that is a fair criticism, although that is what his biographer Hamilton and a number of other authors in the field speculate on. For example the article has a quote by AlanBrooke that Monty in his opinion was the best tactical general since Wellington. In other words, there is no end of clashing opinions and comparisons about Monty in the literature. Still point taken. I will modify that statement to say "in the opinion of some military leaders and historians" which should help any POV confusion andhave removed an entire paragraphy which formerly said

"Possessing neither the dash or charm of Patton, the diplomacy of Eisenhower, the modesty of his counterpart William Slim in Burma/India or the Olympian flair of a MacArthur, and possessing a brusque and conceited manner, Montgomery does not cut a sympathetic figure in many respects. But while he often exasperated his superiors, his enormous popularity among ordinary Britons, as well as his own troops, and the clear results he produced in furnace of combat, testify to the power of his vision, and the efficacy of his methods.";

1. You are also correct that the article is long, but readibility could be aided greatly by better use of more sub-headings to break up long blocks of text. Any controversial character is sure to generate a long article.;
2. I propose keeping both the "Character and Controversy" and "Assessment as Military Commander" sections intact for they both serve to flesh out the controversial career of Montgomery. They could always be made more concise and readable of course.

Enriquecardova 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the comments the right way. Good case for the adding off the section. I am trying to integrate it more with the preceding text (a narrative followed by two discussion sections sort of structure), so moving stuff down, and not repeating narrative. Have to stop now, but will try and finish it off soon, then see what you think. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I think comments from proper soldiers about generalship are well worth inclucding (though with care here: there is no consensus); what I think would be bad is for you, me, and other people who have not been in charge of battles to start trying to leave to posterity our opinions. MAG1 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Finished now. Changed quite alot, I am afraid, trying to be thematic rather than describing what happened at each event. I have taken out the stuff about Montgomery not really being in charge at Arnhem, as I don't think it can be sustained, some parts which were repeating material, and also the conclusion as I couldn't think how to do it in a NPOV way. Any thoughts anyone?MAG1 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Normandy

Some words from Carlo D'Este's Decision In Normandy:

"....the formost trainer of troops produced by Britain during the war...."

"....there was much to admire in Montgomery, not least his determination to stick to his principles."

"To isolate the truth from the mythology of Normandy has been the major task of this account, for unless the veneer of myth and conjecture can be stripped away, it becomes impossible to assess Montgomery's achievements with any degree of balance. ....

"The notion that Montgomery's campaign in Normandy was the product of a grand design executed exactly as planned is, of course, a misconception which has failed the test of careful scrutiny......his shift to a strategy of containment had many adverse side effects...."

And Air Vice Marshal Sir Phillip Wigglesworth: "The Caen fight was a failure. Monty thought up excuses later....so we will have a legend."

D'Este: "The key to achieving the goals of the master plan were retention of the initiative and flexibility, and it was at Caen that Montgomery lost both."

"As Dempsey's papers consistently reveal, the object of the Second Army was to keep the initiative so as to prevent the British front from congealing around Caen, but congeal it did...".

DMorpheus 21:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

More quotes (Robin Neillands):

"The Normandy campaign was not without its glitches and difficulties and accusation of incompetence, plus a goodly layer of self-serving myth. The various controversies about that campaign and those battles flourish to this day, but the strategy - the broad picture, the background to events, the basic plan - was always clear, at least to those at SHAEF not totally devoted to destroying the career and reputation of General Montgomery."

"One problem ... is the tendency of some US commanders and many US historians to play the 'British' or 'Montgomery' card in order to conceal some glaring American blunder".

"... the strategy that had delivered the Normandy victory had been Montgomery's from the start. Montgomery had planned the Western breakout in May, Joe Collins had done the work in July - and Bradley has got all the credit ever since ..."

My birthday soon, so maybe I'll get Neillands' book on Normandy and check out his evidence. He's often critical of Monty, so I expect he had facts to hand. Folks at 137 08:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above when opposing the inclusion of this section, I think that this evaluation of generalship is not a terribly good idea as it is inherently POV and so can't be resolved. What we really need is someone he really has read widely to build a section on military reputation. It strikes me that it is impossible to strip away the veener of myth and conjecture when it comes to reputation: he was generally loathed by colleagues and superiors, so their remarks are usually inherently unreliable, and loved by people under him and at home, so ditto. Even Montgomery's public pronouncements about his record and notoriously unreliable. Many of the books seem to tell us alot more about the authors' points of view than Montgomery's qualities.

I would like us to keep to the facts as they affect Montgomery and his life, not have a hypothetical discussion of the Battle of Normandy. I think Caen is a canard: in the end, Normandy was won; it was won by planned operations; Montgomery was the man in charge; so, I am having difficulty in seeing what is the problem. Anyway, it is not clear to me where Montgomery stops and Dempsey begins (presumably at the same point as Bradley and Patton). As always, rather than having this discussion, we should just add any verifiable facts that are necessary. MAG1 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"As I said above when opposing the inclusion of this section, I think that this evaluation of generalship is not a terribly good idea as it is inherently POV and so can't be resolved." My sentiments exactly. I say remove it or make it much smaller for that reason. --Awiseman 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything written about Montgomery is likely to be "inherently POV" - the man was controversial. Some people are like that (cf. Stalin's or Zhukov's pages, for example). It is impossible to dodge this by sticking to "the facts" because the choice of which facts to include also carries a POV. Why not include published sources' statements about him? DMorpheus 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not obvious to me what the "controversy" is actually about. With Zhukov (Stalin is not a happy comparison), it is clearly mostly about the degree of brutality towards his troops; with Montgomery, it seems to be that people just don't like him. I understand why some of his contemporaries felt that way; I don't understand why people feel so antipathetic now. In fact, the fact there is so much controversy is more interesting than the controversy itself, whatever it is. Facts are at least facts, even if selective. The problem with opinions is that on their own they don't tell the reader much that is interesting. The opinions of contempories can be illuminanting, the opinion of A.N.Other, military historian with a book to sell generally are not. Pn this I think Awiseman is living up to his name. MAG1 23:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Self references?

In an attempt to back up and flesh out a statement that I thought was common knowledge (that other Allied generals, mostly Americans, thought Montgomery should have acted quicker) I put a link to the Battle of the Bulge article that explains just that in two sections, Allies Prevail and Controversy in the High Command just after that. It was reverted as "no self references." Isn't that the idea of Wikipedia, to tie all the articles together? I can only enter a new fact if I get an academic study or field report? --Awiseman 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence is correct.Michael Dorosh 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we need to cover this article in citation needed tags. The Battle of the Bulge article is well-sourced and has been pored over by numerous editors, and to me, the statement I added is common knowledge anyway. --Awiseman 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not common knowledge, and needs to be sourced from a reputable source - the same standard applies to all of wikipedia; the necessity of doing so in this article should not be unexpected. If you have a source for the statement, by all means, provide it. WP policy on self-references is quite clear, however. You seem to be advocating the article be written as Awiseman's Gut Says, which I hope you will agree would be a counterproductive approach.Michael Dorosh 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, the gut thing is not amusing. The first sentence in "Criticisms" in this article says... "Montgomery was often accused of being slow and overcautious. Examples cited include before El Alamein, afterwards in the pursuit of Rommel, the Battle of Normandy, and in the counter-offensive in the Ardennes." And in linking to the Ardennes, an example, it was removed. To me, that's helping the interconnectedness of these pages, not self referencing. --Awiseman 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One does not preclude the other. I agree these should be referenced, but that will be easy. They can also be linked to the relevant wikipedia articles. DMorpheus 19:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentary

I watched a documentary about Montgomery years ago on either the discovery channel or the history channel, during the course of the documentary it said how once he took charge in the middle east he asked for a young soldier/officer into his office and asked them to strip. it never explained why this happened in the documentary and its always stuck in my mind was it hinting at his surpposed homosexuality or was it about soldiers fitness.Corustar 01:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I may well have seen the same documentary a number of years ago, the thing that got my attention was a collection of letters he sent to a german boy which can only be described as love letters, it was never expanded upon but left me with burning questions about his sexuality. That documentary has never been shown since...? 82.34.55.108 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have "burning questions" then go and buy Nigel Hamilton's three volume biography of Montgomery. Monty's relationship with the young Lucien Treub is discussed quite candidly in the final volume, published 20 years ago, and Hamilton went over some of the same ground in his "Full Monty" updated work back in 2002. I'm sure paperbacks are available for dirt cheap on ebay, and they really are very readable books. --Harlsbottom (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Connections- School Named after Viscount Montgomery

Viscount Montgomery School is located in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The school was opened in 1952, and the official opening of the school was presided over by Bernard Montgomery. The school has some archived information, artifacts and photographs that may be of some interest to readers of this article. I'm open to suggestions as to would be appropriate.Gtbrown 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandenburg Gate photo

Good photo. Zhukov & Monty obvious, but could someone please clearly identify the other 2 Russion officers. Thanks. GrahamBould 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Does nobody know which officer is which? GrahamBould 19:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Character and Controversy Section

What is up with this section? It's all POV where someone is rambling on about what they think of his character. This doesn't even belong in this article, or if anything is included it should be facts without interpretation. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JettaMann (talk • contribs) .

Hear hear! --Awiseman 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Only two cheers. Montgomery's character is important because of the effects it had on what he did and on how others reacted to him, and many aspects of it were unusual (as a man he was really quite odd). The section that exists contains references and direct quotes: I think what his contempories thought of him is legitimate in an encyclopaedia. The other thing is that people now seem to get quite agitated about him (see this talk page); so, if something like this is not included then people will add disjointed stuff all over the place. Can't see the POV and it seems pretty factual to me: if you are going to criticise, specifics and new material are always helpful. What it does need is more referencing. Of course, if you think it needs to be improved then you could always get on with it. MAG1 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the first paragraph to use the word "alert" instead of "sensitive" to describe Montgomery's mind, as the following paragraph goes on describe him as insensitive, and much of the following discussion relates examples of his insensitivity. I also sectioned off the discussion below of Monty's title.

Title

Hi: Someone who knows more about the British honours system should be consulted, but I recall clearly hearing from an older serviceman than the viscount title awarded to Montgomery was a slightly 'less good' title. This may be a reflection of his relations with his better ups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.191.173 (talk • contribs).

In that Alexander was made an Earl, as were Wavell and Admiral Mountbatten, yes that is so. There is a letter quoted in the Nigel Hamilton biography in which Monty complains that his title had not been upgraded to an Earldom. Senior commanders in previous eras had been made Earls (Roberts, Kitchener, Haig). On the other hand, by the 1940s there may have been a conscious effort to create fewer senior peers in that the Earldoms were awarded to men who were more than just ground commanders: they were each theatre Supreme Commanders (Alex in the Med and Wavell (briefly) and Mountbatten in South-East Asia) and each also went on to hold a major political job (Alexander was Governor-General of Canada and the other two were Viceroy of India). It is hard to imagine Monty being given any such job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.192.0.10 (talk • contribs).

citation

It seems a niggle, but I think that "at the Battle of El Alamein, a major turning point in World War II, and troops under his command were largely responsible for the expulsion of Axis forces from North Africa" in the intro needs to be cited, I know that any half informed person with an interest in World War II knows it, but this is wikipedia and that is a broad, sweeping statement that I think ought to be cited to at least one historian who thinks so.

Feel free to disagree :) SGGH 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by what needs to be cited, I mean the idea that it's a turning point, and the largely responsible bit SGGH 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the citation is necesseary, really. The article already makes a point of this when it reads about his campaign in Africa. The major contribution towards defeating Rommel came from Montgomery and the military contingent under his command. So, in essence, if that is cited, then that sentence is well founded and shouldn't require over-redundant citations.

I'm going to remove it. Sybaronde 10:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Italy & Normandy

There was also controversy about Monty's actions in Italy. While British & American troops were fighting for their lives at Salerno, the 8th Army took its sweet time advancing, against minimal opposition, to their aid. To this day it is unclear exactly what Alexander's orders to Monty were, but there is the famous remark attributed to Monty-- "Alexander made his bed, let him lie in it".

Also, the article reiterates that the Normandy campaign went "exactly" as Monty had planned-- the British holding the east, while the Americans broke out on the west. If that was the original plan, it was news to Eisenhower & Bradley. Sounds like post-battle spin.

Personally, I think that if Auchinleck (or any number of British generals) had been given the advantage in men & resources that Monty had at 2d El Alamein he could have won. achilles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.249.131 (talk • contribs)

Monty thought the advance up the toe of Italy a waste of time, correctly predicting that he would be held up by natural obstacles, blown bridges etc (only two roads iirc) and that the Germans would be able to withdraw their forces and attack the Salerno beachhead. Maybe others would have raced a token force to Salerno for publicity, but not provided serious help any quicker. On the other hand, many writers have little good to say about Mark Clark's handling of Salerno or his willingness to point the finger at Monty. After what had happened in Sicily, Monty was not allowed to rewrite the invasion plans again - perhaps if he had, Clark would have claimed he was trying to steal American glory.

In Normandy, I think Russell Weigley argued from the documents that Monty had originally intended a British breakout in the East. I don't know what the current historiographic line is.

Auchinleck might well have won Second Alamein - he had shown himself to be a good battlefield commander at Crusader and First Alamein. One can think of plenty of others who would have made a complete ballsup (commanding an army is a higher level of responsibility than most generals manage), and certain others who would have boasted even louder but not won any quicker. Second Alamein was a hard fight, with the Germans dug in behind dense minefields, and easily could have gone very wrong had the CW forces not been pushed on by a determined and ruthless commander. Monty had the advantage, but it was nowhere near as overwhelming as some of his slaggers-off like to imply. Most serious writers (eg. Bungay) about Alamein speak highly about his flexibility in rewriting his plans as he had to, and coping with the less than satisfactory performance of certain British units (eg. X Corps). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk • contribs)

• “Auchinleck might well have won Second Alamein - he had shown himself to be a good battlefield commander at Crusader and First Alamein.”

It was not Auchinleck’s role to be a battlefield commander. He was appointed as Commander in Chief Middle East Command and was replaced by General Alexander. General Montgomery was appointed as field commander of the Eighth Army (after the fortuitous death of Churchill’s first ill considered choice, General Gott) and given the task of dealing with Rommel’s forces.

Auchinleck was not considered to be a good battlefield commander, particularly by the Commanders of the three Dominion Divisions under his direct (if temporary) field command. The Australian, South African and New Zealand Commanders had all lost confidence in his leadership.

The official New Zealand Army history of the campaign covers this aspect quite well. About a third of the way down the chapter headed: “Alam Halfa and Alamein - The Opposing Armies”.

“In the space of seventeen days up to 27 July, when Operation MANHOOD broke down, General Auchinleck had ordered an almost continuous series of attacks, using Australian, British, Indian and New Zealand formations. They brought Eighth Army about 12,500 casualties, about a third of whom came from the New Zealand Division, for a nearly equivalent casualty total in the German-Italian army. If, as Auchinleck implied in his despatch, the July operations were designed to withhold the initiative from the enemy, they were successful. But, with this simple aim, they could have been just as great a success with much less loss.”

And a little further on:

“The July battles roused considerable criticism within the army, criticism not confined to the three Dominion divisions involved. For the New Zealanders' part this culminated in the statement by Major-General Inglis then commanding the Division, to Lieutenant-General Gott, commander of 13 Corps, that he would have to refuse the use of his division in another operation if the plans followed those of Ruweisat and El Mreir. The sum of such criticism was probably as much a factor as the state of the army in persuading Auchinleck to go over to the defensive at the end of July.”Targossan (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re removed category

I removed a category on the basis of the WP:Categorization policy.

"An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there."

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: B-class review for WP:MILHIST

I was looking over this article with respect to elevating WP:MILHIST’s rating to B-class since at first glance it seemed to have most of the bases covered. However, it contains a considerable amount of judgmental statements and “assessments” – pro and con – that are unsourced and therefore make them appear to be creations of Wikipedia editors. Where these judgments are generally accepted among biographers and historians, they should cited to sources that say so; where there is disagreement, both sides’ positions should be presented as given by their respective leading proponents and cited accordingly. Since Montgomery was such a controversial character, care should be taken to draw on neutral sources as opposed to those with an axe to grind or those raising a controversial and not widely accepted assertion. I would also recommend a bit less reliance on Dixon for the controversial aspects of Monty’s personality and career, since there are many other reliable sources for these. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos

This is written under the WWI tab: "A photograph of October 1918 shows the then unknown Lt-Col Montgomery standing in front of Winston Churchill (Minister of Munitions) at the victory parade at Lille.".....Anyone know of a public copy of this photo? Might be good to post...Engr105th (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the first photo in Alastair Horne's mid-90s book "Monty the Lonely Leader". (Apropos the discussion below, Horne also remarks that Monty's love of the company of young men and boys was "pitiful loneliness" rather than anything else). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also in Vol I of the Nigel Hamilton biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned significantly elsewhere in Historical pederastic relationships

are you aware of this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.28.16 (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't speak for the other people involved in this, but I'm well aware of that other article.

"historical pederastic relationships" is based on the definition of pederasty in the article "pederasty". As discussed in the talk page of that article, there are (at least) two different definitions in use. Depending on the definition "chosen", the results are quite different.

Labelling the relationship which Montgomery was reportedly in as pederastic is dubious as long as this uncertainty remains.

IMO, the polemical approach taken in that discussion makes it unlikely that anything will be decided in the near future.

CBHA (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The decision to prefer one definition over the other in Wikipedia has prevailed for a significant period of time, and the possibility that that decision will change is what is 'unlikely .. in the near future'. Just as unlikely, therefore, is the possibility that the relationship of Bernard Montgomery and Lucien Trueb will be removed from the purview of the historical pederastic relationships article, hence that article's relevance as a legitimate WP:ALSO reference.Laslike (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to many people (or many incarnations of the same person) I think everyone who observes this article is aware of it. I fail to see how about four lines of text counts as "significantly" and how a list counts as "elsewhere". The notes asscoiated with that little tract are revealing as well. The editor who inserted it cites Hamilton's The Full Monty but declines to mention which pages to refer to, which is only valid if the book were one big record of Montgomery's pederasty, which it obviously isn't. An article from a columnist in The Times is also cited. Written 5 years after Hamilton's new book, it's hardly a peer-reviewed historical article is it now? And the article from The Independent? The idiot who wrote that couldn't even understand that the "first incarnation" of Hamilton's biography of Montgomery was published over a seven-year period - he says/implies that it was published in 1981 when the volume relating to Mongomery's later life (and Lucien Trueb) was published in 1988 (I have the first edition). Just because it's mentioned does not mean it's right. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Entirely unpersuasive. You think four lines with multiple supporting references and the associated article being a list disqualifies. Then explain the hypocrisy that List of military commanders has been a longstanding 'see also' link here?!? The entire content linking it to here is five/eight (unreferenced) words ("Field Marshal Montgomery (WWII UK)"). And, oopsy, it's -also- a !list!. Now the rationale to add this person's relationship into the pederastic relationships article is entirely sound considering the facts and references supplied, the other content/relationships mentioned there, and the scope and definitions accepted there through prevailing consensus of that article's editorship (as well as the editorship of a wide variety of articles within [:Category:Pederasty]). You seem also to be encouraging that we do the -opposite- of adopting definitions accepted by the consensus of the editorship of specialised concept articles being referred to here. Am I missing something, or is that the somewhat rather unbrilliant anti-idea of attempting to destroy the consistency of definition of concepts (such as pederasty and pederastic relationships) between different articles referring to the same subject matter across Wikipedia. Dear me. I'm not of the view that we are free to define a term differently in every different article and screw how it has been agreed to define it at its principal defining occurrence and elsewhere generally in Wikipedia. I think I'm also right that the two academics (one a history professor) refer to Bernard Montgomery as a "virtually a non-contact paedophile" through their review and appraisal of Hamilton's work of biography. So lets have our pragmatism informed by that to start with. Your not liking how this person's name is found to appear in another article on Wikipedia simply does not draw support from any Wikipedia policy informing a conclusion that knowledge of that appearance should be suppressed out of this one. (If wrong, kindly cite me the policy that does). Have you any remaining arguments in support of such a suppression? Triplehernia (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked there was absolutely no disputing that Montgomery qualified as a military commander. And which two acdemics are you referring to above? --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 10:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, multiple-usernamed person, for providing the review. However, you can not possibly admit that as evidence. The review in question does not directly cover either of Hamilton's two books which cover his relationship with Lucien Trueb. A sole review in any case would be a shaky foundation for this argument, but one which has no academic bearing other than two reviewers being sloppy... Sorry, but I and I'm sure many others have yet to be convinced. The link provided, which appears no where else on Wikipedia, is here, for others interested in this subject. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 12:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So you fail to cite any review or reviewers concluding otherwise or refuting any of the evidence and fundamental facts exposed by Hamilton. We know what regard to have for that.Laslike (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Check these out:

“ [Montgomery's biographer Hamilton] feels enabled to draw upon letters that have previously been unpublished and which indicate, Hamilton believes, that Montgomery had crushes on boys and, in the case of a Swiss boy, Lucien Trueb (12 in 1946 when the two met), that Montgomery was passionately in love. Though stressing that he had no evidence of any physical contact, Hamilton revealed that he himself, as a boy (he was son to Montgomery's press advisor), had had a Platonic though "homoerotic" relationship with Monty. And this sexuality was, Hamilton thinks, a key to Montgomery's soldiering. ”

“ In 1946, Montgomery took a shine to 12- year-old Lucien Trueb, and would take the "little Swiss boy" off on trips to his chalet in Gstaad. However, any funny business was limited to bathing the child and towelling him dry so that he "would not catch cold". ”

Pronkstyler (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Those who have been following this saga may be interested in teh discussion at user talk:Geogre#Original Research "R" Us. David Underdown (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the other article definitely refers to him, and for a substantiated purpose. Who's afraid of mentioning that .. & why?WhyHowWhere (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That other article no longer mentions Montgomery, he was removed for lack of sources/references. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

State funeral

Our article on state funeral isn't particularly well referenced, but it doesn't make any mention of a KG's funeral being a state funeral, and a fuenral at St george's doesn't really fit the mould of wha twould normally be thought of as a state funeral. David Underdown (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Public perceptions notwithstanding, Montgomery received a state funeral as was his right. This evening I will dig the citation out of Volume III of Nigel Hamilton's biography of Montgomery. St. George's Chapel is the chapel of the Order. What can vary are the level of the honours accorded the dead, hence Churchill's in London. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Knights of the Garter are definitely NOT automatically entitled to a state funeral. Only the sovereign (and I think possibly the consort, although I'm not sure even about that) are automatically awarded a state funeral ceremony (unless they refuse it). It is a very specific ceremony. I have never heard that Montgomery was given a state funeral, and as far as I'm aware, in the 20th Century, only 4 people (excepting the Royal family) had one - Roberts, Carson, Haig, Churchill. It doesn't have to take place in London (Carson's was in Belfast I think) but it would be unusual to hold it in Windsor. If this is true, it is a very esoteric piece of knowledge, as almost every source specifies that Churchill's (in 1965) was the last state funeral in Britain to date. It is surprising that the state funeral of Montgomery, who died in 1976, has been forgotten or overlooked, if this is the case. This definitely needs to be cited from a very reliable source, because everything that I can find suggests that it is just plain not correct. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, there's been plenty of recent press coverage of this issue due to the rumours that maggie will be accorded a state funeral when she dies, I certianly don't recall Monty being mentioned as one of them. A ceremonial funeral perhaps, but that's not a state funeral. David Underdown (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A very good case in point - Thatcher already IS a member of the Order of the Garter. If she was automatically awarded a state funeral (as would e.g. John Major, a fellow KG, and, eventually, almost all former PMs), why would the papers be full of the controversy? Eleven members of the order have died this century (admittedly one or two of whom were foreigners). I do not recall there being a state funeral nearly every year for the past decade... Harlsbottom has made an honest mistake I think, although I'd be interested to see exactly what his source says, but I am fairly certain he's wrong on this point. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of different funerals paid and organized by the state as opposed to the individual's family. State Funerals are the very top level with all the trimmings, military processions, lying in state and Westminster Abbey or St Pauls (usually) and IIRC require a motion to be passed in Parliament (which may be done in prior to death (see Margaret Thatcher)). The Queen Mother and Princess of Wales had "Royal ceremonial" funerals which were similar but are decreed by the Crown rather than Parliament. Both these are only rarely granted especially to non-Royals. Knights of the Garter are entitled to have a funeral in their Order's home chapel of St George's in Windsor castle, but these are not a full blown State Funeral. Dabbler (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have clarified the source of the confusion better than I did. A state funeral is something very specific. Montgomery didn't receive one. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how "reliable" you consider The Guardian but this article is unambiguous. Only 9 non-Royal state funerals have occurred in the last 500 years: they are Sir Philip Sidney (1586); Horatio Nelson (1806); Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (1852); Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (1865); Charles Darwin (1882); William Gladstone (1898); Field Marshal Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts (1914); Baron Edward Carson (1935); and Sir Winston Churchill (1965). Garter funerals at St. George's Chapel are full of ceremonial but are not State funerals. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And also http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/14/margaretthatcher.past - lists the last state funeral as that of Churchill in 1965. Most recent KG to die was probably Edmund Hillary - who does seem to have had the New Zealnd version of state funeral, but also got a memorial service at St George's by virtue of his KG. David Underdown (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The last two British members to die according to List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter were Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan in 2005, neither of whom had a state funeral (although both services were seemingly in Westminster Abbey). Since things seems to be fairly conclusive, I've reverted to the "non-state" version in the article proper. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Page 946 of Monty: The Field Marshal 1944-1976. "As a Knight of the Garter Monty was entitled to a State Funeral at St. George's Chapel, Windsor. The Ministry of Defence, in cooperation with Monty's son David, had been making all the necessary arrangements for months past." I would argue that you are all defining State Funeral far too narrowly as something only Royals and Churchill got. And quite frankly, I would not consider any newspaper article since Churchill's funeral as especially accurate.

Anyhow, from my own experience how would one characterise John Jellicoe's funeral? Lying in state (St. Henry;s Chapel, Westminster Abbey, chapel of the order of the Bath), procession to the Admiralty, followed by a massive military procession to St. Paul's Cathedral and his grand interring there.

At any rate, the wikipedia article on State Funerals isn't specific and is largely unreferenced, and I've seen nothing on this thread which approaches evidence that they are limited to Royalty (although Dabbler raises good points). As to why there's a hoo-ha about Thatcher having a state funeral, there are many people out there who hate her so much that they would begrudge her a good send-off, or there are those who fear that such an event would become a flashpoint for violence. As to Heath and Callaghan, the key word there is "entitled".

And so far I'm the only person to have quoted anything from a published source other than a newspaper, which all to frequently get their history wrong. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the BBC? (Bolding is my emphasis)

The Queen Mother would have been the first to insist her funeral should in all ways adhere to Royal protocol. There would have been no question in her mind that her passing should be marked by a ceremonial funeral rather than a state one.

The distinction is a subtle one. State funerals are reserved for monarchs and although the Queen Mother was queen, it was her husband George VI who held the throne.

There have been exceptions over the years. In 1965, Winston Churchill was afforded a state funeral to honour his life as a great war leader. His body travelled on a gun carriage from Waterloo Station to St Paul's Cathedral where it was borne up the steps by officers from the Grenadier Guards. A precedent had been set in 1852, with the lavish state funeral of the Duke of Wellington.

Pomp and ceremony

These apart, the term "state funeral" has been reserved for reigning kings and queens. Most of us watching, though, will notice little difference between the state and ceremonial event.

Buckingham Palace says the only visible departure is that Her Majesty's coffin will be carried by sailors rather than drawn by horses on the day of the actual funeral.BBC News site

Now I agree that the BBC doesn't mention Montgomery as not having a State Funeral but it wouldn't if he didn't have one and if he had I suggest that they would have included it. I think that Hamilton is using the term too loosely in applying it to Montgomery's funeral as the BBC is well known for its care in dealing with Royal protocol issues. I don't know what Jellicoe's funeral arrangements were called, but all the references don't mention them as being a "State Funeral" as such but perhaps it was something else of a similar nature. Dabbler (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[Unident] Given that reference, I can certainly understand the confusion. Simply put, it's wrong. I will try to dig out some corroboratory literature today, if you refuse to accept newspapers published after 1965 (a position which is possibly a little extreme). Another idea would be to involve the various relevant Wikiprojects on nobility etc etc. I am a little surprised however - the Thatcher furore, which has been all over the papers recently is, one would have thought, fairly conclusive on this issue. Whether they would want to or not (in the case of Thatcher, it seems to be New Labour itself that suggested the idea of a state funeral, I can't remember there being any particular groundswell of opinion in favour previously), the government is not able to "unentitle" someone from having a state funeral. ALL of the Thatcher articles have made clear that a state funeral is something very, very unusual. There are (in excess of) 25 members of the Order at any one time, of whom about 9 (British) members have died since the year 2000. Using your argument, ALL of these were entitled to a state funeral, but NONE chose to accept it. That, to me, is a little strange. Members of the Order of the Garter are not by right entitled to a state funeral. The author has either made a mistake, or been a little loose with his wording. But if that is what your reference says, then we certainly need to find counters to it to confirm that it is erroneous. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I will admit, I find the lack of anything concrete on the subject worrying, but I have a lot of respect for Hamilton's scholarship. I've been in contact with him before on another issue, but he now lives and works in the United States and all his "Monty" materiel is here in the United Kingdom, so he might be able to explain his choice of words.

I will ask though, how many of you have read the laws governing the Order of the Garter? I know I haven't, and I really do doubt that anyone else commenting here has. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I did look at the pages on the St George's Windsor website, and they certainly don't mention anything. The statutes will have been published in the London Gazette, so it should be possible to find them. David Underdown (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty, which so far has led to one assertion that members of this order do not automatically qualify for a state funeral. There are multiple sources - from the BBC and respected national newspapers - asserting that the last was Churchill in 1965. There is the recent Thatcher furore, which, to me at least, is conclusive in itself. There would be no debate as to whether or not to grant Thatcher the honour of a state funeral if she was already entitled to one anyway, and I do think the sources are clear on this. If all members were granted a state funeral, and there are dozens of members, then we would see more than 4 or 5 state funerals a century I think, even if some waived their right to one. In a work of scholarship of 947 pages or more, mistakes are going to creep in regardless of how well researched it is. I suspect the author may have meant it in the sense of "a funeral where the deceased lies in repose", i.e. for viewing (perhaps by the public) beforehand, and used his wording a bit loosely. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would perhaps accept this as a mistake if only one man had made it - however I have come across two other books which directly refer to Montgomery's funeral as a state funeral. Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1887-1976: A Selected Bibliography (1999) p. 129 and Montgomery's own brother, Brian (who walked behind Montgomery's gun carriage at Windsor) in A Field-marshal in the Family (1987) - can't find the page reference for that right now but it's on Google Books. Noone thought to correct hamilton on it in his O.D.N.B. entry for Montgomery. In The Times of Thursday 1st April, 1976, it is recorded that "Marshal Rudenko, the Soviet Minister of Aviation, is to attend the state funeral at Windsor". In The Times of 4th May the event was also labelled as "a state occasion". Commonly used to describe the funeral at the time as well was "military funeral". To find all this out took ten minutes tops. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Times reports that say anything other than funeral say miltary funeral. Perhaps most tellingly the Court Circular for that day simply says funeral, not state funeral. We have good references to state that the last state funeral was that of Churchill - and form the similarity of the answers in the BBC and Guardian, I'd rather suspect that their information derives ultimately form the same official source. Just because other people have made errors doesn't mean to say that we have to perpetuate them here. David Underdown (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now also checked Hansard. There are plenty of references to a state funeral in connection with Churchill. None in connection with Montgomery. David Underdown (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a state funeral. The sources are clear. However, you've done your homework - if you persist with this line of argument (as you have every right to do, even if incorrect, you have sources which seem to back you up) then it's up to us to find counterweights asserting the fact that Churchill's was the last state funeral in Britain (which it was). For my part, this will have to wait until at least the weekend. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Video clip of the funeral here [5]. Not withstanding the inaccurate caption, the hearse is being drawn by horses. MAG1 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum

Going to add a line or two about the IWM as they have extensive holdings relating to Montgomery's service which I think are relevant to this article. IxK85 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

North Africa and Italy

I would like to propose that the following sentence is changed from this:

In conjunction with the Anglo-American landings at Salerno (near Naples) by Mark Clark's Fifth Army and seaborne landings by British paratroops in the heel of Italy (including the key port of Taranto, where they disembarked without resistance directly into the port), Montgomery led Eighth Army up the toe of Italy.

to this:

In conjunction with the American landings at Salerno and British landings in Taranto Montgomery led the Eighth Army up the toe of Italy. Landings at Salerno were made by Mark Clark's Fifth Army. Seaborne landings by British paratroops in the heel of Italy included the key port of Taranto. The British disembarked without resistance directly into the port. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.148.225 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the concluding sentence, paragraph six of this section be expunged:

“Montgomery, however, is sometimes criticized for failing to capitalize on his victory at El Alamein.”

To simply mention that Montgomery is ‘sometimes criticized’ by persons unnamed could be considered a historical ‘fact’. However, to make such a statement without adding any supporting evidence or justification in what purports to be a historical article implies that the writer agrees with its validity and does not consider proof to be necessary.

The assertion may well be very popular with Americans but is not supported by any facts. It represents a sly attempt to distort or falsify history. Opinions based on pure ignorance should not be included in any kind of historical work.

I propose that the following paragraph be inserted in its stead:

“Virtually all Axis armor and artillery was abandoned or destroyed. Over 30,000 prisoners were taken with an estimated 10,000-20,000 dead. The Eighth Army then entered the post battle pursuit phase, which lasted 17 days, and advanced 670 miles, at an average rate of 39 miles per day, to take the demolished port of Benghazi on 20 November 1942.”

I know of no other example of a military land advance that went as far and as fast. Nothing in history even comes close.

Finally, the ‘Slowness and Overcaution’ section should be corrected to exclude El Alamein as an example of the alleged ‘slowness’ of Montgomery and the Eighth Army. Such a claim is untenable.Targossan (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

field Marshal Bernard Montgomery cap badges

what are the two badges on his cap(92.24.124.125 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

His badge of rank and the Tank Regiment badge (of which he was not a member) DMorpheus (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image sizing

Regarding the recent edits and reverts regarding image sizes, I've read WP:MOSIMAGE to see what it says regarding thumbs. This doesn't seem to be one of the exceptions to using the thumb sizing. I wouldn't care either way, but the forced image sizing has resulted in the article becoming a jumbled mess on my relatively small laptop screen. Is it really necessary in this case? Leithp 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Images can be user set under My preferences, when the image size has been forced it ends up as Leithp says in a jumbled mess. the default when using thumb is 180px. If a editor is not happy with the default all they have to do is amend their own prefs setting. That way the article is presented to everyone according to their own settings. Users not logged in or without an account will get the default setting. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Three thoughts:

(1) The Manual of Style is a guideline, not a set of hard-and-fast rules.

(2) The list in the MoS is not an exclusive one, it's just a list of possible examples where hardcoding may be appropriate; other examples may be just as appropriate. (That's why we've got brains and judgment, to use in determining stuff like that, as opposed to being a robot and just looking up stuff in a list of rules.)

(3) Anything which improves an article is, inherently, allowed - that's the real meaning of WP:IAR.

So, you guys decide: are you going to slavishly and dogmatically follow a list of suggestions as if it was God's word sent from on high, or are you going to actually look at the article and make a judgment about what's best for it? It's up to you, because I'm out of here -- I've used up my allotment of giving a damn for this particular article, so while the discussion can (and should) go on here, include me out, please. I won't be editing this article any further.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, the result of forcing image sizes to a larger size is that it can cause problems at lower resolutions. Unless there's a compelling reason for doing it, I can't see why we would want to hamper readability for those users. Leithp 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)