The WW2 Showdown In The Middle East | Desert Generals | Timeline
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2017
- Britain would have lost her empire and the war in 1942 had Axis forces beaten the British army in the Middle East. Tim Collins re-investigates Britain’s critical desert campaign, and the controversial battle tactics needed to take on the unbeaten Panzer army in total war, preventing Hitler from gaining Egypt, Iraq and the oilfields. Foreshadowing current world events, this oil-rich region was crucial to the war effort. These are the World War II battles that shaped the Middle East, and created the world in which we live today.
This is the story of a final showdown between two titans of war in uninhibited warfare without buildings, cities or populations. In 1942 The British Army was being pushed back towards Cairo at a rate of almost 100 miles a day. Within a week, Rommel would take Egypt. The allies would lose the Mediterranean, Asia, the Iraq oilfields and its nascent US ally. At the moment of greatest peril, using unorthodox tactics and on the back foot, the British army fought the Panzerarmee to a standstill and then routed and decimated the German armour. This is the story of the "forgotten" Battle for Egypt, and the inside picture of the tactics that stopped the German tanks in their tracks.
With CGI re-enactments, Colonel Tim Collins shows what actually happens in desert theatres under lightning-fast mobile conditions in man's closest approximation to total war. Tim Collins uses his own experiences in Iraq and the Middle East to elucidate the phantom fluidity of desert war and shows what it looked like for the first time. He gets inside the head of the British commanders facing Rommel in a hundred mile battlefield pitted with danger. He reveals the unorthodox "battle group" tactics later taken up by modern NATO armies - and the successful use of combined all-arms formations adopted by the British army today. Documentary first broadcast in 2007.
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service, at a huge discount using the code 'TIMELINE' ---ᐳ bit.ly/3a7ambu
You can find more from us on:
/ timelinewh
/ timelinewh
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries, please contact owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
Ah, now I remember Col. Tim Collins, the narrator. He was the man who gave the eve of war speech to his men, in Iraq. It is both inspirational and humbling, and matches anything Churchill gave us.
I'll say this much, Greg: when he said his closing lines, I choked up a little. No, I'm not Irish, but I felt a surge of comradeship in that moment.
Learned a lot of new military history from this doc. Fabulous work.
Putting all squabbling aside, nit bloody picking ....l thank all of you for this stunning victory, and that for 70 yrs lve enjoyed your efforts..l lived in freedom.
Thanks lads..all of you.
English Mik
Right on.
I fully agree. Lots of comments from the usual American detractors: I've seen them before. As Brits we should always take pride in the fact that the First and Second Battles of El Alamein were the first comprehensive defeats over the Nazis during WW2. This happened before the Americans had actually turned up and before Stalingrad had finished. With grateful acknowledgement to our Empire allies.
Churchill said Monty was “ indomitable in defeat and insufferable in victory”
So interesting, explaining this Monty guy and the pisitive contribution of Auchinleck.
Fascinating to learn that Monty was of Irish extraction in this most excellent and well present documentary.
Colonel Collins has a future as an excellent presenter of great analytical military documentaries 👏. Thank you for uploading this great documentary about such bravery and fortitude of the 8th Army. Cheers lads!
Excellent production. My wife's uncle was OC of an RAF Wing in the desert war.
Tim [?]I have been a young army office, I have read "A life in conflict" ... you are a delight for a man in middle age. Thank you.
Great documentary - full of new things. Thanks!
Brilliant documentary! Really enjoyed watching this!
8:47 Rommel was "at the end of his supply line." Of course he was; where else could he be? More to the point, his supply line was over-extended.
That item you lost is always found in the last place you looked
Yeah. There is no end of that sort of thing in this. Also, misplaced, almost random emphases.
Funny observation... :)
@@rascallyrabbit717 Hot water heater.
The music is unbelievably beautiful!
E. Pappas
great documentary unbiased ....thank you so much!!!!!!!!
With respect, Montgomery shined in North Africa but to say - as the narrator stated - that he won WW2 is a bit much.
Where did the narator state that?
Montgomery said that. Not the narrator! Monty was as egotistical and arrogant as George Patton. That's why they hated each other. Yet, Patton was adored by US troops and Montgomery by the British ones.
@@thevillaaston7811 This video says that the Desert War ensured the winning of World War Two. That is nonsense.
@@walterm140
But winning in the Mediterranean helped to cut Germany off from imports from outside mainland Europe, prevented the possibility of a German and Japanese link-up and tied down 50 Germand sdivisions in Italy and the Balkans.
they were nowhere close to that as the RN had the upper hand in the Med and months earlier the USN had blasted IJN @ Midway who now knew they were up to their necks
FANTASTIC DOCUMENTARY ,I LOVE TO WATCH IT AND I WILL WATCH IT AGAIN,IN FUTURE TIME.....I AM TOTALLY SURE THAT I WILL WATCH IT AGAIN (BOTH PARTS ,I MEAN)..
P.S.- I only have to add that in the battle of El-Alamein ,the allies were not only British and commonwealth troops but also Greeks, Poles, French and some Americans too (if i am not referring every nationality that fought for the Allies, i am really sorry and please correct me....)
Here is my father discussing his experiences in war in the 8th Army. ruclips.net/channel/UCb89K58ISJdEYEuPrj2cTqw?%5C=
Agreed. I also like the soundtrack, which comes from your great country. Cheers...!
What I most appreciate about this documentary is that the Commonwealth troops are named, Australian, New Zealand, South Africa, India. So many times British history ignores the huge contribution made by these countries that didn't have to be there. During these battles Australia was being threatened by Japan.
@John Cornell
The Japanese just didn't have the resources to land in Australia. If they manage a landing they certainly could not supply it and still maintain all their other commitments.
John Cornell Good one! My grandfather fought the Japanese in New Guinea and they got as far as Port Moresby - 530 kilometres from the Australian mainland. They launched numerous air raids on Darwin and Broome, as well as a submarine attack in Sydney Harbour.
When did this documentary do that ... all I heard was “the British this, and the British that.”
Geebers, didn’t the Murkans win the war on every front?(one way or the other?). Well, with a little help from Monty and Churchill, here and there. (Ahh, good ol Winnie, destroyer of empires😂Just as well his side won?, he’d have been strung up for treason, in hindsight?).
I would like to know music from this documentary i like it do you know where i can find?
great doc
Churchill should have stayed out it and let the generals do the fighting
Yes, but Churchill was greatly under pressure, as he was strongly being opposed in British parliament to resign, as he was to also face a no confidence motion, as only military defeats were being seen by his opposition. Churchill was no military strategist to understand the North African basic war at that level, so he acted under political pressure...he had to take some action...
Appointing Montgomery wasn't successful? Hmm.
@@alastairbarkley6572 wouldn’t have mattered, the “who”. The materiel was overwhelming. (8-1 in tanks, or better?. Fuel to run them, air superiority. Nothing much was left to chance. Accountants are good at that sort of thing?).
If I were a grunt, on the ground, I would be glad to have better accountants, working for us.
Tim Collins - there is a real man.
Although I don't think he was a total fraud , Monty was definitely a liar and built his reputation on the foundations of others. Arrogant and Narcissistic he treated his peers with unnecessary contempt. Never did he take responsibility for any of his tactical mistakes. Market Garden was an over ambitious operation but if succeeded would have shortened the war . Any military operation that relies on you believing you are superior to the enemy is doomed and that was Monty's biggest fault.
On the other hand, he was completely confident in any decision he made and once on a course of action he carried it through. And he built the 8th army s confidence and gave them a new will to win . His man management abilities were second to none . And although I'm not saying El Alamein wouldn't have been won without him , the morale he reinstated in the men definitely went a long way toward the victory
Im a huge liar i lied about saving 5 people from a fire when i only saved 3
My dad was in the 8th Army under Montgomery and told me the troops had no time for him.
kgs42
That flies in the face of all of the evidence.
kgs42
Which 8th Army?
kgs42
My neighbour was in the 8th Army, his dog was named, _Monty._ They adored him.
I was there too and i had no time for your Dad ,
@@gamestation9437 sure you were,so you're 96 years old and using the internet,ya OK
Something really should have been done about these landmines being left uncleared after these wars. Millions left in North Africa, as well as air dropped cluster munitions in Loas, Cambodia, and North Vietnam.☠
That was the worthiest cause Lady Di was behind. Those cluster bombs should be banned. (Some look like a part of a toy?). Who dreams these things up?.
something rarely discussed is that Rommel had a special signals intelligence unit that was reading all the Brits radio signals...
And Monty had intel provided by Ultra, something his predecessor did not.
"Ultra" is THE key. It enabled the British to cut off Rommel from supply. Axis supply convoys from Italy were constantly wrecked. Throughout the lengthy North African campaign, Rommel worked with captured materiel.
That ended when the British under Auchinleck attacked an Italian position and captured Rommel's vital signals intelligence unit which was being fed information by Italian spies. After that, the "little Fellers" were no longer forthcoming as the British discovered that the source of this intelligence leak was an American consulate giving detailed map locations and plans of the British.
Rommel benefitted from intercepted signals from US diplomats in Cairo.
@@johntherecluse5121 Australians 26th Brigade captured the Intelligence unit 621 under General Leslie Morsehead at 1st El Alamein.
Imagine if the men and tanks in Kursk went to the Desert Fox...
My view he was more skilled than any Brit general he faced but supply shortages. He was defeated on fumes.
Known to us now is the massive advantage enjoyed by Monty by virtue of "Ultra". The gift of Blechley Park. It was no happenstance that Axis supply convoys to Rommel were consistently sunk in the Mediterranean sea. So as not to spoil the game, the Allies let just enough get through to avoid suspicion that the Enigma code had been broken. The ongoing secrecy under the "official secrets act" gave Monty ongoing cover to write his lies after the war, building his legend.
He got himself in that situation. Why are germans always making excuses for their failures? Rommel was great at PR, but was a second level among the great German generals. He lost fair and square.
@@celticman1909 at that time rommel had access to allied encriptions. Later on in the war the allies wised up
I like Rommel but I could never wrap my head around some of his decisions from a logistical standpoint. You cant base your campaign around capturing enemy supplies that's a good way to get your troops killed.
@@rc59191 That is simplistic on your part.
I wonder if the Desert Fox was better served giving up alot of land, pulling far back to shorten supply lines. Let Bernard build up - the KEY is letting the 8th army come meet him. No El Alamein, its open ground to employ sweeping flank and rear attacks. Germany worked best in MANEUVER, badly in frontal attacks as Kursk demonstrated.
Having just read all the posts and replies....I had the flashback to a doc that had compelling evidence that Monty's error in the D-Day campaign was responsible for all the horrible hedge-row fighting.
The shore landings at Juno beach had better success than Gold or Sword and part of a Canadian division made huge advances. Not certain of all the factors, but I remember the doc interviewed several veterans (both, Soldiers and Officers) and they were stunned when they were ordered to halt.
...and just when they were about to occupy the un-occupied hedge-rows.
What might have been....
Also, Monty's spin on his own 'history', as he sees it, reminds me of the scene in Breaking Bad where Saul Goodman is 'tap dancing', in his office, trying (just before Walt attacks him) to sooth Walt's ruffled feathers.
Sauls response to Walt's accusation, that corners him, 'Lets not get caught up in the Who, Why, and When's...'
A bit random to make that c8nnection, but that scene just kills me.
Full respect to the doc, the presenter, and most of all....the 2 Generals who history (...or Monty) snubbed.
History has been corrected.
Cheers from a former Soldier
The shore landings at Juno beach had better success than Gold or Sword and part of a Canadian division made huge advances. Not certain of all the factors, but I remember the doc interviewed several veterans (both, Soldiers and Officers) and they were stunned when they were ordered to halt.
...and just when they were about to occupy the un-occupied hedge-rows.
What might have been....
Where is the evidence to support this claim?
Sorry but you're 100% wrong about Monty and the hedgerow fighting. 100s of recon flights and photos didn't show how truly large the hedgerows are. Every single person in command staff thought they were 2-4ft high, and mostly brush. But they're not. They're massive. And extremely well built structures of varying materials from different rock sizes from gravel to mini boulders, dirt, sand, and everything in between. Look up how they were made.
I'd love to hear your sources on everything you claimed here.
-From a former soldier.
Oh one last thing, the landings had better success in some areas because the tanks were able to make it ashore. Crucially, flail tanks. These things made quick work of all the obstacles in the way. Many movies etc don't truly show how many tanks actually made it ashore, but it was a very significant number, only omaha faced the tank problem because they were released at the planned 5000 away mark despite the tankers yelling we won't make it this far out. The other beaches the tanks were released much closer in in better conditions so made it ashore
@@jamesmaddison4546 - so true about the tanks at Omaha. American documentaries have always made Omaha a story about American courage, bravery, resilience and overcoming huge odds, all of which is true. However, documentaries on D-Day and Omaha in particular always overlook: 1) the stupidity of certain American commanders to release the DD tanks too far from the beach, and 2) the refusal of the Americans to use the British specialist tanks, known as 'Hobart's funnies.'
What is the music in this documentary
This documentary is more like a british desert generals rather than desert generals. Italians are mentioned nowhere in this documentary significantly when the fact is that they formed majority of the axis forces in desert war.
Quantity over quality won the battle
It's often said that "quantity has a quality all it's own".
Monty deserved that victory because, he changed The Auk's plan. He also had great staff under him such as, Freddie De Guingand (Chief of Staff), Bill Williams (Intelligence). The victory & glory belongs to Monty.
Freddie de Guingand promoted by Auchinleck, Bill Williams also under Auchinleck. Without Auchinleck there would be no Montgomery, who amended Auchinleck’s plan and took the credit for it.
What I don't understand is that Montgomery is considered a brilliant commander. In reality he won battles by having overwhelming superiority over his enemy.
The first guy lost after having superioriti
TheNighthawk00
'What I don't understand is that Montgomery is considered a brilliant commander. In reality he won battles by having overwhelming superiority over his enemy.'
Overwhelming superiority in numbers applied to every single US victory in Europe in the Second World War. Which one do you want?
@Paperchucker
I don't think so.
So your saying you can only be a brilliant General if you have about 3 tanks and 5 men, HOW DARE MONTY BUILD A BIGGER ARMY WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS !!!!
Only about 6 to 1 superiority over the Germans and Montgomery's win at 3rd Alamein occurred at the time of the Torch landings in Algeria for which Rommel had to retreat anyway. 2nd Alamein was fought based on Auchinleck's plans. Montgomery failed to catch Rommel all the way back to Tunisia despite Rommel running out of fuel on more than one occasion. Nothing quite like pursuing slowly to prolong a chase and become famous for doing so.
watts the name of the music in the background, I have heard that before,
It's at least Lisa Gerrard from Gladiator and the music from Black Hawk Down, both by Ridley Scott.
Monty's ego didn't help. A Bridge too far aka Operation Market Garden was a disaster due to poor planning on Montgomery's part.
Why was Market Garden a disaster?
@@thevillaaston7811 It was "A Bridge too Far". The soldiers were sent into "soft" areas that weren't soft and forced to parachute into the wrong areas because ole Monty wouldn't listen to intelligence collected. The History Buffs channel did a good video on the subject.
@@dennislogan6781
Arnhem might have been "A Bridge too Far" but the rest of Market Garden freed a fifth of the Dutch population, stretched the German line by another 50 miles and hindered the ability of the Germans to launch V weapons at Belgium and Britain.
The 15,000 casualties incurred in Market Garden should be compared with other allied failures at that time at Aachen (20,000 casualties), Metz (45,000 casualties), and the Hurtgen Forest (55,000 casualties).
The intelligence collected was seen by all of he senior Allied decision makers.
@@thevillaaston7811 I only know what I have seen in a few documentaries. But from everyone who I have heard speak of it they all agree the plan was flawed in many ways and didn't achieve it's objective. The deaths were still deaths. You don't waste human lives if you can afford not to.
I like the music! Lesson learned from The Civil War series on PBS.
Montgomery was at the beginning of his supply chain and delayed attacking until he had overwhelming superiority to Rommel's Africa Corp who was not reinforced and at the end of their logistics. Of course the British were going to win. Yet Montgomery moved slowly and achieved victory in Tunisia with American help. Monty was a disaster in Sicily, took a month to take Caen in Normandy when he boasted he could take it in a day - and came up with a disastrous plan in Market Garden - he was a mediocre general at best who arrived at the right time and place. Britain was desperate at this point for anyone to call a hero and they picked this bozo to be it.
Also cargo shipping (or some times even cargo-planes) were intercepted by Malta and other Mediterranean bases ,so many of the supplies that were for Africa Corp and their Italian allies sunk and never became available !
The Americans in North Africa were a bigger danger to the Allies than the Germans or Italians.
Flash Point History
Your words in 'single quotes'
'Montgomery was at the beginning of his supply chain and delayed attacking until he had overwhelming superiority to Rommel's Africa Corp who was not reinforced and at the end of their logistics'
A policy that was entirely justified.
'Of course the British were going to win. Yet Montgomery moved slowly and achieved victory in Tunisia with American help.'
After the allies had been there and back twice Montgomery made certain that the allies would not overrun its supplies and be prone to a counter attack.
Victory was complete and had little to do with the USA.
'Monty was a disaster in Sicily,'
In what way?
'took a month to take Caen in Normandy when he boasted he could take it in a day '
Total rubbish. Montgomery set a number of targets for D-Day. Where is it stated that Montgomery boasted about taking Caen?
'and came up with a disastrous plan in Market Garden - '
Ultimate responsibility for Market Garden rested with Eisenhower, who, by the time of Market Garden was Land Forces Commander.
'he was a mediocre general at best who arrived at the right time and place.'
You mean like in 1940 when he had to command a Division in France.
'Britain was desperate at this point for anyone to call a hero and they picked this bozo to be it.'
'Wrong. The whole thrust of British propaganda was to emphasise the collective effort and the efforts or ordinary people - civilian and military rather than Politicians, Generals and Admirals.
Example: The 1941 official history of the battle does not even mention Dowding, the head of Fighter Command during the battle.
Example: Wartime feature films: 'The Foreman went to France', 'Millions Like Us', 'In Which We Serve' 'The Way Ahead', 'Went the Day Well' and so on and so on.
I would advise you against replying to this comment.
That the Navy and Air Corp had bombed into submission.Other wise Monty would have gotten Dunkirked again - we couldn't let that happen now could we.Metz was because provisions were given to the failed mission of Montys,meanwhile it afforded the Gerries time to dig in and set up blockades. Monty not only faffed up his operation he screwed his allies too - what an idiot
3:05 name of the song
Liked the perspective, but the introductoey comment about Stalingrad being a sideshow was ridiculous. There were many more German troops in Russia than Africa.
Also, there was little mention of the importance of the Suez Canal and colonies to Churchill as opposed to Iran/Iraq oil. Seems like a long way from Cairo to Tehran anyway.
Where did it say that? The immense efforts at Stalingrad overshadowed Auchinleck's victory at the first battle of el-Alamein. That's what was said. You disagree? You think it shouldn't have?
I think from memory there was something like 190 divisions against the Russians. I have never asked how many fighting men were in a German division. The Australian 9th Division that kicked Rommel's backside in Tobruk in 1941, was around 15,000 fighting men, and about 24,000 all up. I think also that Rommel had two divisions of German troops, and about eight of Italian, late in 1942 at El Alamein. I can be corrected on these latter figures as they are from memory, but I am reasonably confident.
Even if the Germans somehow got to Iran, they had no way of transporting oil to Germany
A very Honest appraisal of Auchinleck but the most telling part of the Narrative was the excerpt from the Diary of a young Subaltern commenting on the new breeze of optimism...Monty had the ' gift of the gab' ..He was Irish after all and although slow methodical and ponderous were his criticisms he was a chancer who would attack any opportunity He did bring a new impetus to the Desert Army through personality and on the back of a huge amount of materiel from America!
Take out the items that came from the USA(most of which was paid for and collected by Britain), and Britain still wins.
Too many bloody adverts!!!
I read Carelli Barnett's book in 1963, so I was aware Monty had his faults. But he did provide the 8th Army with what they desperately needed in a leader at the time. Not fair to the Auk but keeping the clueless Ritchie around was what doomed him. The greatest injustice was what happened to Dorman-Smith, but he had made too many enemies in the army to survive. Ritchie though a doorknob went on to further commands because people liked him. People, especially those not the brightest resent you when you are too clever.
Ritchie went onto to command at a lower level, which better suited his talents
Hee-hee Hee-hee! You tell him!
I never considered Auch and others sacked. Just reassigned in a situation where Britain reused good leaders. And, Monty succeeded because ultra came online. I’m sorry to learn it wasn’t like that for them.
Monty was at the very beginning of his supply chain, and Rommel was at the end of his, as Flash Point History said. He was flush with troops and had more than twice the number of troops that Rommel had, and something like four times the tanks. Rommel's troops had be worn down, while Monty had fresh troops. He would have had to really suck in order to lose. He also blundered pretty bad at Market Garden. That was his plan, not Eisenhower's. Eisenhower expressed his doubts about it, saying it was too complex, which is exactly why it failed. Monty convinced him to sign off on it, so he did. Monty was kind of overrated. Patton was not.
No mythos he blasted past mallethead Monty at Sicily and Normandy.Ike should have been relieved for placating the crown's interests.Monty making enemies not only in SHAEF but the BEF itself.Historians agree had Monty been American he would have been relieved not only for glaring incompetence but insubordination
@John Cornell watch the video,The BEF had 1,100 tanks and 225,000 men.Rommel had 200 tanks,90,000 men as the video states,low on fuel,food, water, many new Shermans that I told you in another thread that FDR gave Winnie after Trobruk - the 300 tanks and 100,105 mm howitzers
As the Eighth Army went west, its supply chain was stretched very thin, and thinner the more it went west.
How could General Monty lose this battle with this overwhelming superiority not only of men, tanks, cannons but also of ammunition, fuel, supplies, water, nothing was missing and everything in large quantities.
It was impossible, and it did.
Ike told Montgomery to take Antwerp, to get a port. M refused and pushed on with Market Garden in his crass arrogance. After Alamein 2 Montgomery failed to pursue and allowed the AK and allies to get away.
Wasn’t Paddy Mayne (major in SAS) an Ulster-man also?
From the German side it was the first battle of El Alamein that decided the issue. I read.
Then you'll know who Captain Seebohn was, right? and you'll know why he was a VERY important cog in either the Allies or Axis war machine in the desert war?
You'll also know WHY you think Rommel lost after the first battle of Alamein?
And you'll know what contribution and crucial advice 'Smiling' Albert Kesselring gave to Rommel and the Italian High Command?
And you'll know what caused Rommel's supply issue AFTER the first battle of Alamein?
And you obviously know who would have smashed Rommel within several weeks if his forces hadn't been taken to Greece in a fruitless attempt to stop Germany from invading Greece for certain reasons, right? And you'll know WHO convinced CIGS to send those meagre but crucial forces to Greece when they should have been used in a way that you understand, right?
And you'll know what time of the morning it was that General Cruwell plucked a tagnut from between his arsecheeks on the day before he was captured? right?
It must have to be said that the 8th Army did win the African campaign but did not push the Axis forces out of Northern Africa until the Americans landed in Tunisia under Operation Torch. As for Monty who can ever forget the thousands of men he sent their deaths also in Operation Market Garden which was a failure Also. This was due to his ambitious Ego. As for him being a good General and Field Marshall I personally believe the Allied forces still would have saved more lives in WW2 without him.
@Aussie Downunder It should be noted that the large majority of the troops landed in the West due to Operation Torch were British. While I have no wish to dispute the bravery of the American forces who fought in North Africa but it has to be remembered that it was only a single Corps of American troops. Regardless of of Operation Torch, the 8th Army was always going to drive the Africa Korps all the way out of Libya in the month or two after El Alamein. The 8th Army was built up to unprecedented strength over 231,000 men by this point and Rommel was at the end of his logistical rope.
The 8th Army pushed the Afrika Korps the half length of Egypt, the full length of Libya and well into Tunisia. It had pushed back Rommel once before during Operation Crusader the year before. But after El Alamein, they were pushed back for good. The majority of losses suffered by Rommel in North Africa were inflicted by the British and its Empire allies. Almost ALL of the losses suffered by the Luftwaffe in North Africa were at the hands of the RAF and the SAS. The same can be said of the German and Italian navies. Operation Torch would not have been as successful or as easy had it not been for the steady victories of the RAF and the Royal Navy over the previous two years, before America had even entered the war. Remember that.
Great Post the RN/RAF/ULTRA and massive allied supplies and logistics from the USA had as much to do with the Africa.Not a pep talk from the effete Monty. This for the most part is a great docu
It would have been interesting if Monty was in charge just before the loss of Tobruk . I'm sure that there would not have been such a disastrous defeat.
Great documentary. Germans needed oil to sustain themselves and had they won in Egypt, they might have gotten the oil supplies of the M.E. .
It baffles that the presenter says that Montgomery's tactic, the projection of personality, was 'brilliant and innovative leadership' when Napoleon had been doing it over 100 years before. I'm not trying to take away from the brilliance of the idea or Montgomery for employing it but you'd think that this would be at least heard of before 1942 given that Napoleon was one of the best generals of all time who was well known for inspiring great loyalty, and acts of bravery, in his soldiers.
Heard of yes but not particularly really endorsed or even generally used. I'll give you the case of a similar general at the same time who beat one of his own troops with a pistol because they were a coward, or the fact the both Blucher and wellington (to go back to Napoleon) were nether particularly liked by their men but they were trusted, feared and respected so produced similar results in their men.
With the support of the Royal Navy and American supplies
This is a ghastly British chest beating documentary - much in the same vein it accuses Montgomery of being. Which is ironic. It dreadfully overlooks the key contributions of Commonwealth units In the Second Battle of El Alamein, Australian and New Zealand divisions played a crucial and decisive role in this battle. But of course, as always, it’s a case of “the British did this and the British did that”.
Where, in this documentary, does it omit Australian and New Zealand when the composition of 8th Army is mentioned?
agreed - the self-congratulation is laid on thickly.
So many British generals against one German General? who is this Romel?
You seriously asking who the desert fox was?
The film is dedicated to only one general .
Montgomery had much more confidence, vision and connection with those under his command, that is why he was the right choice at the right time. Was he liked by the men? - not necessarily! but then a good commander is not there to win a popularity contest he is there because he is doing his duty and he is reminding those under his command of their duty to.
"A Legend was born"? Seriously? He won one Battle....ONE! Against a foe who was cut-off from his supply lines and with very little Fuel for his Army. Add to that he had a huge advantage in man-power, in Arms, in Munitions...everything! I would think MANY commanders could succeed with such huge advantages. Add to that, he had an ego that was as big as England itself! Because of Monty the Falaise Gap wasn't closed and they ended up being the very soldiers who cost him (and 20,000 soldiers) in Market Garden. He's a defensive Commander and he's not comfortable when his army is called on to the offense.
'He won one Battle....ONE! Against a foe who was cut-off from his supply lines and with very little Fuel for his
Army' Your words.
At ALAM EL HALFA, (Eighth Army)
4 divisions, defeated the (Panzer Army Africa) 6 divisions. Montgomery also won at the Second Battle of El Alamein, Battle of El Agheila; Battle of Medenine; Battle of the Mareth Line, Battle of Wadi Akarit; Hskey, Overlord, the Scheldt, the Northern half of the Battle of the Bulge, and the Rhine.
'Against a foe who was cut-off from his supply lines and with very little Fuel for his Army. Add to that he had a huge advantage in man-power, in Arms, in Munitions...everything!' Your words.
According to those that were actually there, there was far more work to be done than building up supplies:
‘without consulting Cairo, he issued immediate orders that, if Rommel attacked, all units should fight on the ground where they and that there should be no withdrawal or surrender. The effect on the Army was electric.’
‘I was dumfounded by the rapidity with which he had grasped the situation facing him, the ability with which had grasped the essentials, the clarity of his plans , and above all his unbounded self-confidence-a self-confidence with which he inspired all those that he came into contact with.’
Alanbrooke
Everybody said what a change there was since Montgomery had taken command. I could feel the truth of this with joy and comfort.’
Churchill.
‘I have always considered that Montgomery’s first two or three days with his Army was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, and the way in which he put over his personality, right through the Army, was really remarkable. Besides talking to the staff and laying down what he called his ‘military philosophy’, he met all Commanders and their troops and, of course, examined in great detail the ground now held and that over which we would have to fight. I accompanied him during the reconnaissances which resulted in decisions as to the way he proposed to dispose his forces for the defensive battles which we all expected. It would be Rommel’s last desperate to reach the Delta, and failure would remove once and for all the threat to our Middle East Base.’
De Guingand.
"Montgomery who we first encountered in 1940 was probably the best tactician of the war if not the best strategist. He made mistakes. Rommel made mistakes as he too was stubborn. Montgomery when he arrived in Africa changed the way the 8th army fought, he was a very good army trainer and was ruthless in his desire to win, he changed the battle into an infantry battle supported by artillery."
German Generalmajor FW von Mellenthin.
'Because of Monty the Falaise Gap wasn't closed' Your words.
"In halting Patton at Argentan, however, I did not consult Montgomery. The decision to stop Patton was mine alone. I much preferred a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise".
From US General Omar Bradley's A Soldier's Story book. Page 377.
'and they ended up being the very soldiers who cost him (and 20,000 soldiers) in Market Garden.' Your words.
MARKET GARDEN casualties amounted to 17,000. This figure should be compared to other undertakings at that time at at AACHEN (20,000 casualties), LORRAINE (45,000 casualties), and the HURTGEN FOREST (55,000 casualties).
'He's a defensive Commander and he's not comfortable when his army is called on to the offense.' Your words.
You have used the present tense. Actually Montgomery died in 1976.
Montgomery chased Rommel 1,400 miles across North Africa, with hundreds and hundreds of miles between supply ports before Rommel could stand and fight. In Normandy...
‘All along the front we pressed forward in hot pursuit of the fleeing enemy. In four days the British spearheads, paralleled by equally forceful American advances on their right, covered a distance of 195 miles, one of the many feats of marching by our formations in the great pursuit across France.’
US General Dwight D Eisenhower.
Any questions?..
Thoams Harder - good post and Exactly he also liked young lads so you will hear Little Villa defend him. As Omar Bradley said, "Montgomery rarely won a battle any other competent general wouldn't have won as well or better." Montgomery was not only famously insensitive and deliberately insulting to his brothers in arms, but he was capable of outright lies if he thought it would elevate him above potential rivals
I'm sure I heard or read or saw that Churchill's original choice for replacing Auchinleck was killed in a plane crash. Has anyone else heard of this event?
Yeah, a South African general called strafer gott
@@christophersmith5691 Not quite. 'Strafer' Gott was born in Scarborough (poor sod!)
So the Second Battle of El Alamei and Operation Market Garden shows that Monty was just an incompetent strategist.
Why does the Second Battle of El Alamein show Monty was just an incompetent strategist?
@@thevillaaston7811 he rode on the triumph of the First Battle of El Alamei prepared by his predecessor, where all he had to do was press the Play button. On the Second Battle basically he was simply a “Stalin” type Strategist. Just send vast amount of people to a weakened and exhausted opponent and still failing to defeat him. The Second Battle of El Alamei was too complex and not thought well and the same thing happen in Operation Market Garden.
@@macfiona4545
Not really...
Montgomery was not even in Africa when the First Battle of El Alamein took place. He never claimed any credit for it.
Geography dictated where the Second Battle of El Alamein would take place and how it would be fought. 8th Army had the sea to its right and the Qattara Depression to its left. In front of 8th Army were three million mines and behind them the Axis forces.
His plan for the battle was his, as evidenced by Alexander:
‘Recently there has been discussion whether or not General Montgomery ‘adopted’ as his own the plan evolved by his predecessor for the action that was shortly to be fought - actually within a little more than a fortnight of his taking over command - in defence of the Alamein position.
I cannot conceive that General Montgomery is likely to have been interested in other people’s ideas on how to run the desert war; and in my own conversation with General Auchinleck, before taking over command, there was certainly no hint of a defensive plan that at all resembled the pattern of the battle of Alam Halfa as it was actually fought.
…as I have already indicated, the actual pattern of the battle was exclusively Montgomery’s.’
THE MEMOIRS OF FIELD-MARSHAL EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS
CASSELL, LONDON
1962
And also as evidenced by Auchinleck:
ruclips.net/video/-QlDkjzsYV8/видео.html&ab_channel=PatrickRushton
The Auk at 90: David Dimbleby interviews Field-Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck 1974
The claim that Montgomery was 'was simply a “Stalin” type Strategist. Just send vast amount of people to a weakened and exhausted opponent and still failing to defeat him' is absurd:
EL ALAMEIN
MICHAEL CARVER
LONDON. B.T. BATSFORD 1962
P 195
‘8th Army casualties of all kinds had been 13,500, just under eight per cent of the forces engaged; 500 tanks had been put out of action, but only 150 were destroyed beyond repair; and 100 guns had been destroyed either by enemy action or premature shell bursts. This was not a high price to pay for the results achieved.’
P 199
‘the proportion of casualties to the total force employed was astonishingly low in light of the results achieved’
.
Shall we move on to Market Garden?..
@@thevillaaston7811 I deeply respect your effort you put to write this down but remember that all opinions you refer to have a bias behind it. How the saying goes: The winners write the story. In regard to Market Garden I hope you not going to say that the Polish were reason behind it’s failure.
@@macfiona4545
But why do you state bias?
Alexander, Auchinleck and Carver were all actually there in North Africa.
What is objective in claiming that Montgomery was :
'simply a “Stalin” type Strategist. Just send vast amount of people to a weakened and exhausted opponent and still failing to defeat him. '
What evidence supports this claim?
God bless Ulster. Great documentary
ok stupid question. i researched it but may have been in vain. what is an alstermen.. not sure how to spell it. at the start of this he says he wants to learn about the alstermens that lead the war. thanks
Pretty sure he meant Ulsterman,meaning I guess Irish Protestant,which evidently is or was a big thing back in the day
@@bigwoody4704 ahh ok yhanks woody
Ah yeah there were some American troops involved, Canadian and others...
In the Western Desert? Nope.
In Tunisia, Operation Torch, which came afterwards, yes.
Montgomery was a total freakin' liar!!!
When?
Always - idiot
Rambo, he asked when?
@@johnburns4017 always idiot.Look up the word always,when you done look up WWII History
@@bigwoody4704
We need examples of lying.
OK, now the singing women is annoying me! 20:00
Valkyries singing for the dead
I feel it very likely that the Ulstermen suffered at the hands of Churchill because they were Ulstermen, considering Churchill's history as Colonial Secretary and his brutal treatment of the Catholic Irish, perhaps a deep seated prejudice against all Irish nevertheless. According to the history presented here, the military situation didn't justify his action.
Later in the Campaign / war he could not afford such petty vindictiveness.
Being the heinous political animal that most politicians are, Churchill later betrayed "Bomber Harris" of the RAF, turning on him as he sensed a change in public opinion at the appalling destruction of civilian life in the firebombing of Dresden.
Didn't work though as Churchill lost reelection shortly after VE day.
I don't think so.
Monty is a sopa !
Churchill is really overrated as a great leader. Ww1, he promotes the gallipoli distaster and here in ww2, constantly bickers with the British army in africa and firing generals who don't meet his political victory lists. Monty came at the right time when Rommel was too weak from supplies and resources(atleast he's a good general)
seems like with his superior numbers and equipment, it would have been harder to lose the battle than win it.
You could say the same for most major battles
@@timothyphillips5043
You could say the same for most major US battles.
jump in the channel little villa like your hero - then read the Full Monty - as you are mentioned in it
Under Auk the British 8th army was pushed back almost to the Nile before finally stopping an under supplied overrated few German divisions, commanded by a fairly reckless general, at an easily defensible choke point. Their achievements speak for themselves without exaggerations from Montgomery.
@John Cornell using the plans and timetable developed by Auchinleck and Dorman-Smith.
@John Cornell Oh! But what a season! As for montys talk of chaos before he saved the day read the footnote in Churchills memoirs re Auchinleck and Dorman-Smith. Monty has gotten a free pass. HAIL! HAIL!
400 US made Grant & Sherman Tanks, Unlimited Petrol and Ammo defeated Rommel.
Monty was a WW1 general with limited intellect.,He spent blood
to assure a victory. The brits had broke the German codes
and knew of Rommel's moves. Yet under poor leadership failed
to take advantage of German troops lack of supplies.
Montgomery's record of keeping casualties low was outstanding. He ended the war in North Africa.
Um no the Allies did 300 shermans and 100 self -propelled 105s,plus ULTRA,Plus Air Corp - could not lose really.Did you watch the video - it's in English.Monty won when he had an embarrassment of riches in men & material.Not because of maneuver,guile or tactics
@@bigwoody4704
Hi Rambo!
monty was born in surrey ??
Yes.
Yes somewhat but Montgomery but he was in competition with Patton and playing with other people's lives
Desmond Miller
Where is there evidence that Monmtgomery was in competition with Patton? And playing with people's lives?
@@thevillaaston7811 The evidence is in the story of both men history during the war , which one will get to where they are going first and how they do it
@@desmondmiller3198
Why would Montgomery have seen Patton as a competitor?
Montgomery was in a different army and was further up the chain of command.
@@thevillaaston7811 you can’t see it so never mind
@@desmondmiller3198
THE GUNS AT LAST LIGHT
THE WAR IN WESTERN EUROPE, 1944-1945
Rick Atkinson
LITTLE BROWN 2013.
PROLOGUE
11
‘Of Patton a comrade noted, “He gives the impression of a man biding his time”. In fact, he had revealed his anxiety in a recent note to his wife. “I fear the war will be over before I get loose, but who can say? Fate and the hand of God still runs most shows.”
Notice that this Patton, seems to have have no regard for the progress of the allies, his thoughts seem to be about his chances of personal advancement.
Of Montgomery on Patton, all I could find this:
MONTY
The Field-Marshal
1944-1976
NIGEL HAMILTON
HAMISH HAMILTON
LONDON 1986
P 180
Monty had, however, continued to show concern about Bradley's front the more so because, in contrast to General Bradley's confidence, Monty did not think highly of either Hodges or Simpson, the First and Ninth US Army Commanders. If only Bradley would transfer Patton to the Ardennes or preferably to Ninth US Army's sector, then Monty was sure all would be well-T.M. Montgomery entirely agreed with your point that it would be a great help to future operations if General Patton is transferred North of the ARDENNES'
Hardly like Montgomery seeing Patton as a rival, was it?
But of course, you have other evidence?..
You guys think that fighting any war is like a war games in military academies. The fog of war is the perfect description.generals politicians have the responsibility of taking the rap whatever the end result. Its not like a computer game like chess. Very unrealistic minds here.
Montgomery was "very very skilled as a commander" ? I should like to see any evidence to back up this assertion. Any moron can accumulate a collection of forces so out of proportion to his foe as to be laughable and swing them at his enemy as a great club. "Adversity reveals the genius of a general, prosperity obscures it". Montgomery as a skilled commander exists only as the beneficiary of the crux of circumstances in which Auckenlek has fought Rommel to a stand still and men/material had become available to the desert campaign not available before his arrival, not to mention a time at which Rommels own supply of men/material was declining. If Montgomery was any kind of tactician any other plan, campaign, offensive,operation under his command, of his devising, with his origin could be pointed to as a success. As a popular figure with his men he can be shown, as a competent tactician, there is no evidence which I am aware. I personally place Montgomery as a blight on British military heritage for the vigor in which he pursued discrediting the leadership that came before and hoarding the accolades of victory that came after, much less the disgusting megalomania that ensued in his following campaigns. All of which to me describes the man as a whole. Self interested, confident to a point of being delusional with no merit and completely out of touch with reality so wilfully as to border the insane.
And which of Montgomery's battles did you fight in?
'Any moron can accumulate a collection of forces so out of proportion to his foe as to be laughable and swing them at his enemy as a great club.'
Then that includes Bradley, his subordinate commander Patton and Devers.
My Fake Name
Monty won Normandy controlling *all armies.* At D-Day plus 90 they were ahead with 22% less casualties than predicated. He took command of two shambolic US armies at the Bulge effectively winning the battle.
@@johnburns4017 Caen.
@@thevillaaston7811 i am not attacking the British forces of WW2 or of any other era. Her martial prowess is legendary and rightly so centuries long military super power status at one time the largest empire in world history largely built by the outstanding Royal Navy and Royal Army testifies to an unrivaled capability to produce elite fighting men and women. I'm not implying lany other allied commander had anymore tactical brilliance or ability or had any fewer failures or that any had the right attitude to lead men by making them want to follow, which Monty clearly was capable of. Im not even saying any of his plans where outright bad. Im arguing the notion he was outstanding only in his zest for discrediting the previous desert commanders, being sole recipient of any praise or glory , and taking credit for things he didnt do without any sign of shame.
Yes. The tragedy continues. Auchinlek was the commander. Yet Monty gets the glory. Monty ended up costing thousands of lives. Allied lives. Monty and (American) Mitchner are the worst commanders in history.
'Monty ended up costing thousands of lives.'
So too did Bradley, Clark, Devers, Eisenhower, Hodges, Patton and Simpson.
Yeah.... well I beat Ornstein and Smough today so...
Tim Collins, you SHOULD learn more before you spout this nonsense glorifying fools who were only successful because of overwhelming odds in their favor. Monty-what a gem he was (marketgarden).
'fools who were only successful because of overwhelming odds in their favor.'
You mean like Bradley, Clark, Devers, Eisenhower, Hodges, Patton and Simpson?
Lets see Monty needed pretty much all of them Patton of course smoked the whack in Sicily.Clark did little in Italy still more than Monty.Devers army did more than Monty with a lot less and Bradley took them across the Rhine before Bernard.Of course Monty needed Simpson to cross the Rhine
"Ulster commanders won the war in the North African desert."
Really? The Russians and Americans would beg to differ.
The Russians weren't in North Africa and the Americans showed up after Monty was pile driving the Germans back.
What did the Russians and Americans do in the desert?
Monty wasn't pile driving anyone,the weight of allied advantages in every phase won that.Auchinlech and Dormen Smith already won 1st alamein.The only reason Churchill obviously drinking again fired The Auk was because he thought troops could immediately attack again,but they couldn't.After Monty was brought in he waited 10 more weeks to resupply/refit/reinforce - the same time line The Auk explained he needed 6 weeks Churchill bit his tongue realizing he screwed up
@Colm Maguire ,Great Commander,he did that w/o ULTRA,The 2 Divisions from the Nile Delta,the Torch landings (109,000 Troops in 3 places) and the shipment of Sherman tanks and 105 mm Howitzers from the States
Less TV more reading always a good thing
Whats up with this Ulster thing?
Over and over again he talks about The Ulster men...
Why is that importent?
The Irish during the Empire brought alot of highly effective soldiers, Ulster is home to UK loyalists in Northern Ireland so a majority of our Irish soldiers came/come from there. The Ulster are a different breed not quite Irish not quite English but 100% British if you get me. Also to reiterate the point NI is still loyal to the Kingdom
Because they built the Desert in 1912 out of sand from every beach in England
It's obviously a pro - Irish documentary - but not very accurate - the generals may have been Irish - butmost of the private soldiers were Liverpudlian or Scots.
This guy thinks that the battles in North Africa saved the war! That's laughable on its face. "Ulstermen saved the war." LOL. Tim Collins sure is full of himself.
Ask Timmy why the British forces were being "evacuated" from
1940 Norway,Netherlands, Belgium and France,Dunkirk
1941 Greece, Crete,Hong Kong and Libya
1942 Tobruk and Dieppe,Singapore
I guess the plan was to break German fists on Ulsterman's faces
Wow if I had total air superiority, and was fully supplied, and had constant reinforcements, and allies attacking from the other side.... I might beat a way more superior general like Rommel also !!!! Montey was a joke in so many ways, look into it.
Montgomery won at Alam el Halfa, Alamein, El Agheila,
Medenine, Mareth Line, Wadi Akarit, Husky, Normandy, the Scheldt, the Northern half of the Bulge, and the Rhine.
Montgomery had fought in the front line in the First World War, being wounded twice and being awarded the DSO. As a lowly single division commander in France in 1940, in trying circumstances, he perfomed with distiction, closing he gap on the allied right caused by the Belgian surrender, and in bringing his division home almost complete.
Where is the joke in that?
@@thevillaaston7811 He won those battles for the exact same reasons I initially stated.
Thank god don't get me wrong.
@@infectious420
Montgomey took over command of Eighth Army in August 1942. His first army command...
‘without consulting Cairo, he issued immediate orders that, if Rommel attacked, all units should fight on the ground where they and that there should be no withdrawal or surrender. The effect on the Army was electric.’
‘I was dumfounded by the rapidity with which he had grasped the situation facing him, the ability with which had grasped the essentials, the clarity of his plans , and above all his unbounded self-confidence-a self-confidence with which he inspired all those that he came into contact with.’
Alanbrooke
‘I saw a great many soldiers that day, who greeted me with grins and cheers. I inspected my own regiment, the 4th Hussars, or as many of them as they dared to bring together - perhaps fifty or sixty - near the field cemetery, in which a number of their comrades had been buried. All this was moving, but with it all there grew a sense of the reviving ardour of the Army. Everybody said what a change there was since Montgomery had taken command. I could feel the truth of this with joy and comfort.’
Churchill.
‘I have always considered that Montgomery’s first two or three days with his Army was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, and the way in which he put over his personality, right through the Army, was really remarkable. Besides talking to the staff and laying down what he called his ‘military philosophy’, he met all Commanders and their troops and, of course, examined in great detail the ground now held and that over which we would have to fight. I accompanied him during the reconnaissances which resulted in decisions as to the way he proposed to dispose his forces for the defensive battles which we all expected. It would be Rommel’s last desperate to reach the Delta, and failure would remove once and for all the threat to our Middle East Base.’
De Guingand
"Montgomery who we first encountered in 1940 was probably the best tactician of the war if not the best strategist. He made mistakes. Rommel made mistakes as he too was stubborn. Montgomery when he arrived in Africa changed the way the 8th army fought, he was a very good army trainer and was ruthless in his desire to win, he changed the battle into an infantry battle supported by artillery. There has been much talk of using Montgomery to 'tidy up in the 'bulge' we would have done the same thing"
German Generalmajor FW von Mellenthin
Notice that all of the above peopler that I have quoted have one thing in common...They were actually there.
At Alam el Halfa, Montgomery's four divisions beat Rommel's six divisions. Where is the joke in that?
At Alamein, Montgomery ended the war in Africa as a contest, with just 13,500 allied casualties out of 200,000 troops. Where is the joke in that?
Montgomery went 1400 miles across the desert to defeat Rommel at El Agheila,
Medenine, Mareth Line, and Wadi Akarit. Where is the joke in that?
For Husky, he won the argument against the US plan for landing troops all around the island, with his plan for concentrating allied landings in one place. The campaign ended in a matter of weeks. Where is he joke in that?
For Normandy, Montgomery undertook to get allied armies to the Seine by D+90. He got them there by D+78, givimng the Germans a bigger defeat than Stalingrad. Where is the joke in that?
‘Knowing that his old antagonist of the desert, Rommel, was to be in charge of the defending forces, Montgomery predicted that enemy action would be characterized by constant assaults carried out with any force immediately available from division down to a battalion or even company size. He discounted the possibility that the enemy under Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line and calmly and patiently go about the business of building up the greatest possible amount of force in order to launch one full-out offensive into our beach position. Montgomery’s predictions were fulfilled to the letter.’ ... ‘Montgomery’s tactical handling of the British and Canadians on the Eastward flank and his co-ordination of these operations with those of the Americans to the westward involved the kind of work in which he excelled.'
Eisenhower
Where is the joke in that?
The Scheldt was a month long campaign, covering 100 miles of shoreline and some of the most formidable shore defences in Europe. Where was the joke in that?
The Northern half of the Bulge was a mess of the US commanders own making, which Montgomery had to sort out.
‘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’.
German Genral, Hasso von Manteuffel. Commander, 5th Panzer Army:
“I find it difficult to refrain from expressing my indignation at Hodges and Ridgeway and my appreciation of Montgomery whenever I talk about St.Vith. It is my firm opinion that if it hadn't been for Montgomery, the First US Army, and especially the troops in the St.Vith salient, would have ended in a debacle that would have gone down in history.”
“I'm sure you remember how First Army HQ fled from Spa leaving food cooking on the stoves, officers' Xmas presents from home on their beds and, worst of all, top secret maps still on the walls... First Army HQ never contacted us with their new location and I had to send an officer to find them. He did and they knew nothing about us...(Montgomery) was at First Army HQ when my officer arrived. A liaison officer from Montgomery arrived at my HQ within 24 hrs. His report to Montgomery is what saved us...”
US General Robert W Hasbrouck
Where was the joke in that?
and the Rhine...
‘Montgomery's preparations for the assault across the Lower Rhine were elaborate. His armies were confronted with the greatest water obstacle in Western Europe (the river at Wesel was twice as wide as at Oppenheim) and their crossing was expected to require, as Eisenhower has said, " the largest and most difficult amphibious operation undertaken since the landings on the coast of Normandy."’
Chester Wilmot
‘Montgomery was always the master in the methodical preparation of forces for a formal, set piece attack. In this case he made the most meticulous preparations because we knew that along the front just north of the Ruhr the enemy had his best remaining troops including portions of the First Paratroop Army.’
‘The March 24 operation sealed the fate of Germany. Already, of course, we had secured two bridgeheads farther to the south. But in each of these cases surprise and good fortune had favoured us. The northern operation was made in the teeth of the greatest resistance the enemy could provide anywhere along the long river. Moreover, it was launched directly on the edge of the Ruhr and the successful landing on the eastern bank placed strong forces in position to deny the enemy use of significant portions of that great industrial area.’
Eisenhower
‘Montgomery wouldn’t hear of it. An early crossing did not fit the plan he had been devising with great thoroughness to meet all contingencies. The resourceful Germans had shown in the Ardennes that they were capable of the unexpected. Bradley, Patton and Hodges might have been willing to gamble and Montgomery was pleased that they had succeeded. But he was not interested in easy victories that might be of limited significance, and he did not believe they fully understood the risks they had taken or the extent of the far greater achievement he was aiming for. Risk taking was for amateurs. The results of the first day of his massive Rhine-crossing operation demonstrated the value of doing things right - six divisions were firmly across the river at a cost of only 1,200 casualties.’
US author Norman Gelb
Where is the joke in any of that?
@@infectious420 Little Villa is a revisionist and screams bombast 75 yrs later. Here you go little Villa Monty's perfomance across the Rhine was almost as bad as Arnhem - ALMOST
*Montgomery in Europe 1943-45,by Richard Lamb pages 360-362* "British 6th Airborne had lost 30% of it's personnel killed and wounded; the Air landing brigade,which came in gliders had lost over 70% of its equipment *The British Army that needed to keep casualty count low lost over 3,100 men crossing the Rhine north of Wesel* The disparity between the number of lives lost at Wesel and the 2 earlier American crossings is striking
Casualty figures for the Rhine River crossings tell a grim story. Hodges 1st US Army got across at Remagen with a *casualty count of 31 men Patton's 3rd US Army came across near Oppenheim "with the total loss of 28 men killed and wounded*
Simpson's 9th US Army had to wait and cross with Montgomery *they suffered 491 casualties crossing south of Wesel.The US 17th Airborne Division lost 921 Paratroopers and 350 air crew - all with Montgomery's 21st Army Group*
Little Villa you squawking fraud, *so Montgomery had 3,100 casualties North of Wesel and 1762 South of Wesel.While Patton/Hodges lost 59 casualties crossing and was two days faster.* Do the math not the meth,your commenting is almost as bad as Monty's commanding
It's NOT about the Middle East, it's about North Africa! CLICKBAIT!
why are you so proud (presenter) to fight in the Iraq war?
This documentary is very good, but it's not unbiased (nothing really is). Correlli Barnett is an excellent writer and military historian, but he's got a personal belief in which the British collectivism developed throughout the 19th century was responsible for the downfall of everything he loved about Britain, the ruthless self-righteous imperial Britain. He is critical of 19th century laissez-faire liberalism and humanism and it's only natural that he would be critical of a general who gave much emphasis on the psychological and emotional aspects of his subordinates like Montgomery. Yes, Montgomery was vain, exaggerated his deeds, thought too much of himself and was probably horrible to work with. But Barnett is a Bismackian conservative who thinks about war as a tool of conquest and that worrying about the lowest ranks is rather futile. And I don't see how an unemotional pragmatist like Barnett would ever like a general like Montgomery who was all emotion (for good or for bad).
'Montgomery who was all emotion (for good or for bad).'
On what evidence do you base this opinion?
@@thevillaaston7811 Not "evidence". It's based on what he says about himself and seeing his reactions towards his colleagues. Why would you say otherwise? Maybe your idea of "being emotional" is different.
His ideas on a lot of things are different
Sir Monty was a total fake who took credit other people actions and the british Govt rewarded him for it while he scolded those that made him famous
So i guess winning 3 battles in a row against Rommel never happened someone else did it and Monty justt stole their story and told everyone ih the pub it was him !!!!
he won battles that any decent commander with those advantages(specially ULTRA) would have,men,material.Allied Air & Naval Forces totally strangled the Wehrmacht.British supply lines were 100 miles away in Alexandria.German supply lines were 1000 miles away in Libya. Watch the whole video
@@gamestation9437 Might have helped if you had actually watched the video. Monty chased Rommel across the desert from Egypt to Tunisia however his first victory wasn't his, it was Auchinleck's.
@John Cornell over-rated head case. Used predecessors plans and claimed undeserved credit.
@@gamestation9437 close!
Monte was a good but egocentric general..only Patton put him in his place..
'Monte was a good but egocentric general..only Patton put him in his place..'
When did that happen?
PATTON schooled the rube in Sicily little Villa he took Palermo and Messina while Bernard faffed around
history presented as a soap opera - fixated on demonstrating NI connections to men borne outside of NI.
A tale that fails to mention two of the biggest influences.... information from Ultra and huge provision of material from the US.
You think the brits could have pushed the germans and italos out of north africa without the americans help ..???
They already pushed them 2,000 km before the Americans arrived.
No the American Tanks, artillery and fuel were already there
i think they could of it would just be much harder and take longer
the brits and the soviets were pushing the germans back and if they both worked together even more they could have ...
umm done damage to germany but the brits and soviets fighting together shoulder to shoulder never really happend
@@lyndoncmp5751
Big Woody also uses the name Para Dave on RUclips comments. He is a teenager from Cleveland, Ohio, USA who hates Britain. A hatred that is only exceeded by his hatred of Montgomery - a person from another country, and who died decades before he was born.
Little villa you've been pissing on the honor of dead GIs and when the truth is pointed out you howl like the yapping little jackel you are.Look up Lucian Treub - that's your hero Monty. And the Brits weren't pushing anyone back
British forces were being "evacuated" from
1940 Norway,Netherlands, Belgium and France,Dunkirk
1941 Greece, Crete,Hong Kong and Libya
1942 Tobruk and Dieppe,Singapore
Alan Brooke was still drying channel water out of his eyes so he couldn't possibly help monty with that German jackboot in his backside
Monty was a joke
In that case Eisenhower, Bradley and Bradley's subordinate Patton were a book of jokes.
Monty overrated and was Churchill’s boy toy.
Kyla Binghay
yea, right oh
@@kylabinghay3277
But the most successful allied general in WW2 boy toy. He never had a reverse.
But without Monty you would be dead thats a fact Monty saved your life
interesting place to visit, to the victor goes the right of literary license , the BS abounds
North of Africa is not middle east
Like a ulster propaganda film.My father and other relations from NZ Irish republican descent fought in these battles.The orange men glorifying their sacrifice forget these facts
The British Crown fought to the last colonial - usually the ANZACs
What's with the hysterical screaming in the background and then again deafening noise to accompany this documentary?! ... what idiot came up with that idea?! ... extremely irritating!.
I don't know if it was Tony Blair or GW Bush he was quoting at the beginning but considering that there is still no peace, much less freedom there 16 years and several million deaths later makes the words ring pretty hollow.
p
An interesting video without doubt, but Col. Collins central thesis is grievously flawed. A group of Ulster generals, the Eigth Army, the Battle of Alamein, did not win the 2nd World War. Marshal Stalin, General Zhukov, the Red Army, the long suffering Russian people, the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk were absolutely instrumental in the defeat of Hitlers greatest weapon, the German Army. Just look at the battle statistics, the the German Army was bled white in Russia and nowhere else.
This is less a documentary on the desert war but more an apologia for the Ulstermen.
Its a pity that this sectarian attitude has coloured the work.
I agree. It is kind of embarrassing, the patting yourself on the back stuff.
GB lost the 2nd WW, the only winner was USA and Russia! GB is now small Britan having lost all world power use to have before the 2WW. In a way germans won the war,
The Brirmy th
The British and commonwealth Armies were the only armies to fight on all fronts in Both world wars. The Russians only took part on one front all be it in huge numbers. They had no naval power or the airpower to move huge armies all over the world like the Brits. The Americans Only took part in the very closing battles against a defeated Germany in ww1and by the time the Americans had finally woken up in time to join the end of WW2 the Germans were already on the back foot. So why so many Brit haters. You should learn from history when was the last Time Britain lost a major war? Answer 1066 Battle of Hastings. Suck it up Brit hatters
Who says i am a Brit hatter you idiot, fact is you lost all your colonies, world influence and power because of the 2WW. Because the truth hurts doesn't mean i am a Brit hater you are just too stupid to understand it.
No the fact is Britain stood up to what was going in Europe and payed the price while the USA turned it's back on the suffering until it's hand was forced by the Axis forces and made a fortune from the hardship of others and then some had the nerve to take the credit for winning the war.
noname if we lost we would be a German colony
What a british joke
This film is drivelous.
Puddles,have the Vicar loosen your ankle monitor when he visits you at the center
@@bigwoody4704
Rambo, a quiz.
Which general moved 1,000km in 17 days in North Africa?
20 points for the correct answer.
Perhaps your having nightmares of the ward boy at the home there.Did he give you back your magazines?
@@bigwoody4704
*BZZZZT!* Wrong answer.
The general that moved 1,000 km in 17 days in North Africa, was...
🍾🎊🎈 *General Montgomery* 🍾🎊🎈
Zero points Rambo. Zero. Better luck next time.
Love a Quiz ok what supposed Empire Field Marshall led the 200,000 skedaddling off of the continent,then ran away 3,000 miles to the desert and didn't return to Europe for 4 full yrs even though it was 30 miles away ? Now come out from behind the curtain,put away your Magazines away and answer the question. If you Guessed Brooke/Monty you may have your magazine back
What is this endless horrid singing, jesus christ.
It's Monty rubbing down the lads