His actions during the Battle of the Bulge resulted in Churchill having to deny his remarks in Parliament, let alone working with Monty caused Ike to threaten to quit because of his dubious bragging.
It would be more accurate to say "his comments" rather than "his actions" No one really argued he hadn't had a positive impact on the northern part of the battle, it's what he said to the press during it, and the impact of that, and the German distortion of it, that made his part in the battle controversial.
@11nytram11 His comments were edited and cherry picked. He actually heaped lavish praise on the American soldiers and said Eisenhower was the team captain who lead the allies.
If it wasn't for Montgomery's actions in the Ardennes, tens of thousands more Americans would have become casualties. Montgomery was given command of the the US 1st Army on the 4th day of the battle after Hodges fled his command HQ in panic and Bradley dithered and did nothing. Montgomery brought order and stability to a messy and chaotic defence that really had not formed any strategic plan yet. The first thing he did was pull the Americans back from St Vith rather than let them get surrounded and cut off like Bastogne. Without Montgomery coming to their aid in the Ardennes, the Americans would have had it far tougher.
Straight out lie. The only General who threatened to 'resign' during The Bulge was Bradley. He told Ike he would resign if Monty was given command of Hodges Army. Ike told Bradley he could resign if he wanted but Monty was getting control over Hodgess. Bradley chickened out and did not resign.
People always cite Market Garden and ignore his other successes. I imagine every senior commander probably had his failures. However it's usually the side with the greatest resources that wins, uf you've got air superiority or even supremacy and/or more troops and tanks and fuel etc it obviously counts for a lot. However Montys' style was encouagment and morale building rather then Pattons' apparent bullish cajoling, I know what I'd pick.
And people who cite Market Garden ignore that the Americans had bigger failures in the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Ardennes etc. Market Garden was actually the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Nearly 100km of German held ground taken in just 3 days.
@@MarkHarrison733 No, Eisenhower's broad front strategy prolonged the war by 6-7 months.The Americans had priority of supply and advance all through October, November and December 1944 but failed in all of them, wasting hundreds of thousands of men and vast amounts of supplies. Hurtgen Forest, Aachen, Operation Queen, Lorraine/Metz, Alsace, Vosges Mountains. Most of these were totally unnecessary and secondary......and they got nowhere. Eisenhower was out of his depth as a field strategist when he took over from Montgomery as C-in-C of all ground forces in September 1944. Under Montgomery as C-in-C of all ground forces, the allies advanced 600km in 3 months, from the Normandy beaches to Brussels Belgium. Under Eisenhower they barely advanced 100km in 7 months, with even a retreat in the Ardennes. Had Montgomery remained C-in-C of all ground forces his concentrated 40 division northern thrust with 4 armies would have ended the war earlier. Eisenhower was an excellent politician, man manager and desk man figurehead, but he was no battlefield strategist. Montgomery was the best the allies had and by some way the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2.
Under Montgomery as C-in-C of all allied ground forces the allies moved 600 km in 3 months June to September 1944, from the Normandy beaches to Brussels, Belgium. Then Eisenhower arrogantly took over as C-in-C of all ground forces from September 1st and the allies barely moved 100km for the next six months with even a retreat in the Ardennes. Eisenhower was an utter disaster as C-in-C with his ridiculous broad front strategy wasting countless men and material in failed secondary campaigns in the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace. Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
@@ZacharyDarkes How can this channel even title this video like this? He only defeated Rommel after the Germans were severely overstretched. Even then Monty waited untill his slave soldiers from the colonies arrived to inflate their numbers.
@@jackjones9460 Don’t forget the Netherlands! Honestly how can you even entertain the notion that Monty was one of the greatest? Perhaps one of the greatest egomaniac’s of the war.
In the west he was. Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Correct predicting El Alamein to last around 2 weeks and Normandy to last 3 months was brilliant. Nobody else had the same foresight.
@@theodoresmith5272 He didnt screw up in Sicily. Sicily was done and dusted in just 6 weeks and was extremely successful. I think you'll find that the Hurtgen Forest and Lorraine campaigns were far bigger and more costly failures than Market Garden. Market Garden was actually the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Nearly 100km of German held ground taken in just 3 days. How long did Patton fail against Metz for? Or Hodges in the Hurtgen? And which American commander was responsible for falling asleep in the Ardennes and allowing the Germans to push them into a retreat, inflicting nearly 100,000 needless casualties? You think Market Garden was worse than the Hurtgen, Lorraine and Ardennes? 😂
But Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
@DaveSCameron I'll defer to Von Mellenthin: "Auchinleck was an excellent strategist with many of the qualities of a great commander but he seems to have failed in tactical detail, or perhaps in ability to make his subordinates do what he wanted. His offensives were costly, unsuccessful and from a tactical point of view extremely muddled. In the light of the July battles I think Churchill acted wisely in making a change. During August we heard of important changes of command on the British side. General Alexander had replaced Auchinleck and General Montgomery had taken over command of Eighth Army. There can be no question that the fighting efficiency of the British improved vastly under the new leadership, and for the first time Eighth Army had a commander who really, made his will felt throughout the whole force. Montgomery is undoubtedly a great tactician, circumspect and thorough in making his plans, utterly ruthless in carrying them out. He brought a new spirit to Eighth Army, and illustrated once again the vital importance of personal leadership in war" From Von Mellenthin: Panzer Battles, Chapter IX Farewell To Africa, pages 137/138.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Montgomery's ability to rally the troops and instill greater morale and fighting spirit can never be overstated. He made sure everyone who who he was and what he wanted.
I’m interested to hear what “Monty” did well. Every recounting I’ve heard made him seem to fumble through while others around him won or lost without much help from him.
@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu Montgomery was C-in-C of all allied ground forces in Normandy. Under Montgomery as C-in-C the allies moved 600 km in 3 months June to September 1944, from the Normandy beaches to Brussels, Belgium. Then Eisenhower arrogantly too over as C-in-C of all ground forces from September 1st and the allies barely moved 100km for the next six months with even a retreat in the Ardennes. Eisenhower was an utter disaster as C-in-C with his ridiculous broad front strategy wasting countless men and material in failed secondary campaigns in the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace.
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
@@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu Just look at the facts he showed up when the hard work was done by others like Monty and Bradley and didn't defeat any significant German forces.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That's a conversation for Eisenhower, and not Patton. Unless you wanted him to go rogue, in which case Patton frequently would as he had absolutely nothing but the strongest intentions of discipline for his soldiers, which put him at odds with people higher than him. He didn't intend to be likeable, unlike Monty, but he knew exactly waht it would take. Patton would frequently skirt regulations that held back the military. Guy had brass like none other. And if you look at Sicily, he absolutely outpaced, and outplayed Monty. His hunches made him FEARED by guys like Rommel. Monty in all his time fighting in North Africa was too concerned about not losing resources, rather than capitalizing on weak points, instead waiting to build up for many weeks and then months, before playing into weak positioning. Have you read ANYTHING about military tactics, or battles like Bastogne?
@@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu "His hunches made him FEARED by guys like Rommel" He was never feared, do you know what feared actually means? It means avoiding the opponent in battle at whatever cost. Hannibal was avoided after the Romans were crushed at Cannae, Napoleon was avoided at Dresden when the Coalition armies were about to fall back when they heard he arrived, so was the Duke of Marlborough when the French armies hid behind fortresses instead of fighting him in open battle ( See Blenheim, Ramilles and Oudenarde as to why the French avoided him). Patton was NEVER feared. Complete myth.
Market Garden was actually the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Nearly 100km of German held ground taken in just 3. Other commanders had far bigger failures such as the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine, Alsace and Ardennes.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The British and Commonwealth forces were defeated everywhere until the US had flooded the entire North African theatre with artillery, tanks, air power, ammunition, food, medicine, fuel etc.
And how was he better than Patton? Just being a stuck up reserved loon is apparently more qualifying than someone he speaks straight, gets the job done, and overachieves, instead of constantly second-guessing himself into the next year in the middle of a world war.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Not so in any way. A logistician would've spent more time second guessing themselves, and never pushing the odds or giving themselves a way to outplay any enemy, than prolonged drawn out skirmishes, and unchanging frontlines. Which are affected only by, once again, logistics. If you play to your fuel source, you narrow your options to a drastic fault. Monty was playing with far less, and even when he did have adequate supply and men, he struggled on the offensive. Guy was good on defense, but on offense, he was known for failures and his ego costed him more than any insight he could've held, as evidenced by his reactionary-based commanding in nearly every theatre and retreat he fought in.
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
General Patton was far better, and frequently exceeded expectations and records. Montgomery was inoffensive, waited on his chances, and generally followed the playbook to an extreme, making him rather unexciting. So no, he wasn't the 'greatest' commander, but was the most archetypical and expectant of what comes with the definition of 'commander' but in no ways did he transcend it.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Because of preferential social justice politics and strict rigor of wanting to confine to regulations. Patton frequently skirted rules and discipline to capitalize on moments far before their commander's could step in and chickenshit their way out of it. It seems like you're more interested in attacking him for not trying to be a likeable guy, when he had every other intention and priority pointing towards him getting the job done and well by all means necessary. Guy was an absolute hero, and pushed people to their max, regardless of the callousness of people above him. Exactly the kind of coach you'd want.
Under Montgomery as C-in-C of all allied ground forces the allies moved 600 km in 3 months June to September 1944, from the Normandy beaches to Brussels, Belgium. Then Eisenhower arrogantly took over as C-in-C of all ground forces from September 1st and the allies barely moved 100km for the next six months with even a retreat in the Ardennes. Eisenhower was an utter disaster as C-in-C with his ridiculous broad front strategy wasting countless men and material in failed secondary campaigns in the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace.
@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu Stop watching Hollywood films. Even Patton's boss General Bradley said Patton was "a shallow commander" who's only tactic was to bull ahead and "never seemed to think through campaigns, seldom made a careful estimation of the situation" etc etc.
@@lyndoncmp5751 If anything Hollywood had to TAME depictions of him, at risk of offending the general audience, corporations, and the military industrial complex norms at large. If you think he was just rushing in headfirst aggressively and nothing else, you have a very shallow and narrow minded view on history. Lot more factors and depth than that, aside from training, how you counter and risk-take, timing, and excessive, EXCESSIVE coordination (more so than what you need on defense) and MOVEMENT to top it all off. They were trained to make successful strokes from one start to finish in many cases, as opposed to rugged back and forth trenchline/skirmish behaviors from older military generals. But apparently you can only see the surface instead of the reality at large.
What did Patton do to be considered the best? Chasing a broken German army already defeated by other commanders ( Monty and Bradley) is hardly worthy of being on this list.
Zhukovs casualty ratios were enormous, while Patton was never in the thick of any of the big western front battles and never faced a premier Waffen SS panzer division or Tiger battalion. He mostly faced second rate rabble in periphery sectors.
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery. Nobody.
@smithwesson7765 Are you serious? Between Monty and Patton... Monty commanded more men, was concerned with bigger issues, and achieved greater successes. Normandy was Monty's success, and the Allied armies attained the areas that Monty had made as objectives for the campaign 3 days sooner than had originally been intended. Patton, by contrast, never commanded anything more than an army and was much of a tactical commander. His greatest success is the rush from Normandy to Metz and the 90 degree wheel in the Bulge... but the former was against a German army that had already been beaten by the slogging match in the Normandy campaign and the later was against the flank of a German attack that was beginning to run out of fuel and manpower. At Metz, where Patton faced a dug in and determined enemy... Patton was stopped dead by French and German made fortifications, some of which going all the way back to the 1800s.
and yet Zhuikov got an entire front killed on the Rzhev salient and yet is called one of the "greats" or how patton got his army stuck in a forest gaining nothing but bleeding his formations and yet its also called one of the "greats" (lmao, Ike and bradley deserve much more credit than patton)
No. That title is most likely Nimitz's (which he'd refuse to accept or even acknowledge) with close competition from Zhukov (who thought and believed it anyway). Remember the Russian had to fight the enemy, climate, turgid technological progress and the Kremlin all of which were highly experienced assassins. Nimitz started with the least resources and the most complicated strategic challenge; and a ruthless attitude towards under-performing staff which got him over the edge. Had Stirling not been captured he might have risen very high very quickly, a truly agile mind and (sad to say) the breeding to allay the war cabinet's arrogance. Marshall deserves some thought, his contribution was turning a socialist president inside out and backwards.
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The question posed was not specific to terrain, or lack of it. Even so I doubt if Monty would have stood up to Winston when he embarked on his Greece, Dodecanese, Soft Underbelly strategic distractions. Thus denying his immediate predecessors that 'land' claim in the worthless soil of Nth Africa. Especially if they had received the materiel support Monty insisted upon prior to Alamein. Furthermore the US breakout from Normandy went deep into France which probably gives the lie to your 'more ground' approach. Monty was mostly competent but he needed a timeout like Patton 'earned' to stay ahead of anyone else in this comparison. Model handed him some very sharp lessons in battlefield management, as would have Guderian or any number of Nazi professionals.
@@peterclark6290 Model didn't hand Montgomery anything. 100km of Model's ground in the Netherlands was taken by Montgomery in the Netherlands in just 3 days. Market Garden was the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Only Arnhem failed but Arnhem was purely air planned and air fought. Montgomery had no real input into Arnhem because the air commanders took over it. Zhukovs casualty rate was appalling. Montgomery would never have suffered those casualty rates. He didn't even around Caen where he faced the densest concentration of German armour ever deployed in WW2 (7 panzer divisions and 3 Tiger battalions just around Caen). Zhukov couldn't even keep the Cherkassy-Korsun Pocket closed. You ARE aware that Montgomery took 2,500km of ground in North Africa when he chased Rommel out, right? You ARE aware Montgomery took 500km of ground in Italy in late 1943 before he was brought back to England to command the ground forces for Normandy, right? Montgomery advanced across Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Italian mainland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and into Denmark. No other western allied general did anything even remotely on that level. None.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Yeah James Holland said he took more territory than any other commander, i guess that's what John peate meant when he said he advanced through 9 countries.
@@lyndoncmp5751 None of those clearly disputable 'facts' would change my mind. His pettiness, egotism and sensitivity were serious shortcomings that exclude him from consideration for the question as posed. What most excludes from consideration was his maintenance of feuds with Patton, Bradley, even Ike which is militarily unconscionable in massive joint actions. Especially when without their nation's resources he'd be better used inspecting Home Guard preparedness. BTW I don't dislike Monty, he just never approached 'greatness'. Too political is my guess. Zhukov fought with what he had (not much if you know about that front) and together with Rokossovsky did *the most of all the allies* to hand defeat to the Germans by several degrees of magnitude. Their losses however do take them out of contention. Boosted yet again by the rarely acknowledged contribution provided by their access to US technology.
I had often thought Monte was the worst of the WW2 Generals due to his disaster at Market Garden and less than stellar performance at Caan. His big claim to fame was defeating Rommel at the battle of Al Alamein, however he had the benefit of having about twice the men, machines and fuel as Rommel. Not to mention, Montgomery also had the luxury of having the German codes so he knew everything Rommel was going to do. So the main battle he has gotten credit for being a great General, was really his to lose. Let's all be thankful Monte didn't get the role of Supreme Allied Commander for D-Day or we might all be speaking German today.
Montgomery was Allied Ground Forces Commander for D-Day, and was the final author of Operation Overlord, and was ultimately responsible for the execution of the plan and command of all Allied Armies - British and American - until Eisenhower took direct control of the Ground Forces on September 1st 1944, and Montgomery was the only member of the Allied High Command who was prepared to launch the invasion on June 3rd - Tedder was opposed due to bad weather forecast, Ramsay was reluctant for the same reason, and Eisenhower postponed the call for a few more days until all his subordinates were happy. If the campaign had been lost then Montgomery would have been the man blamed for that failure. Eisenhower may have written a pre-empting letter claiming ultimate responsibility but the fact that Montgomery had been in charge on the ground would have outweighted that letter in the eyes of history.
Market Garden was still the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Nearly 100km of German held ground taken in just 3 days. At Caen, Montgomery faced the densest concentration of German armour ever deployed in WW2. I don't know of any other commander who managed to get through 7 panzer divisions and 3 Tiger battalions so quickly, and with relatively low casualties.
@@lyndoncmp5751 If Britain is where Russia was and face the same German onslaught from Operation Barbarossa, Montgomery would have suffered high ratio of casualty, and lost.
@@landongsi Montgomery at Caen faced a denser concentration of German armour than Zhukov ever faced and never suffered anywhere near the same casualties as Zhukov. Zhukov was taking unnecessary high casualties even in 1944/45.
His actions during the Battle of the Bulge resulted in Churchill having to deny his remarks in Parliament, let alone working with Monty caused Ike to threaten to quit because of his dubious bragging.
It would be more accurate to say "his comments" rather than "his actions"
No one really argued he hadn't had a positive impact on the northern part of the battle, it's what he said to the press during it, and the impact of that, and the German distortion of it, that made his part in the battle controversial.
@11nytram11
His comments were edited and cherry picked. He actually heaped lavish praise on the American soldiers and said Eisenhower was the team captain who lead the allies.
If it wasn't for Montgomery's actions in the Ardennes, tens of thousands more Americans would have become casualties. Montgomery was given command of the the US 1st Army on the 4th day of the battle after Hodges fled his command HQ in panic and Bradley dithered and did nothing.
Montgomery brought order and stability to a messy and chaotic defence that really had not formed any strategic plan yet. The first thing he did was pull the Americans back from St Vith rather than let them get surrounded and cut off like Bastogne. Without Montgomery coming to their aid in the Ardennes, the Americans would have had it far tougher.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Yeah didn't the Germans sabotage an broadcast?
Straight out lie. The only General who threatened to 'resign' during The Bulge was Bradley. He told Ike he would resign if Monty was given command of Hodges Army. Ike told Bradley he could resign if he wanted but Monty was getting control over Hodgess. Bradley chickened out and did not resign.
IMHO the BEST British general WW2 was William Slim CBI.🌟‼
Without question
@@philipwardle6820 Slim abused children.
People always cite Market Garden and ignore his other successes. I imagine every senior commander probably had his failures. However it's usually the side with the greatest resources that wins, uf you've got air superiority or even supremacy and/or more troops and tanks and fuel etc it obviously counts for a lot. However Montys' style was encouagment and morale building rather then Pattons' apparent bullish cajoling, I know what I'd pick.
And people who cite Market Garden ignore that the Americans had bigger failures in the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Ardennes etc.
Market Garden was actually the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Nearly 100km of German held ground taken in just 3 days.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Market Garden was a complete failure.
@@MarkHarrison733
90% of its plan was achieved. The Germans retreated 100km and lost Eindhoven and Nijmegen.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The failure of Market Garden extended the war in Europe by 6-7 months, together with the publication of the Morgenthau Plan.
@@MarkHarrison733
No, Eisenhower's broad front strategy prolonged the war by 6-7 months.The Americans had priority of supply and advance all through October, November and December 1944 but failed in all of them, wasting hundreds of thousands of men and vast amounts of supplies. Hurtgen Forest, Aachen, Operation Queen, Lorraine/Metz, Alsace, Vosges Mountains.
Most of these were totally unnecessary and secondary......and they got nowhere.
Eisenhower was out of his depth as a field strategist when he took over from Montgomery as C-in-C of all ground forces in September 1944.
Under Montgomery as C-in-C of all ground forces, the allies advanced 600km in 3 months, from the Normandy beaches to Brussels Belgium. Under Eisenhower they barely advanced 100km in 7 months, with even a retreat in the Ardennes.
Had Montgomery remained C-in-C of all ground forces his concentrated 40 division northern thrust with 4 armies would have ended the war earlier.
Eisenhower was an excellent politician, man manager and desk man figurehead, but he was no battlefield strategist. Montgomery was the best the allies had and by some way the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2.
Very nice channel! Lots of good stuff I look forward to see. And: only very quiet music, such a relief!
Under Montgomery as C-in-C of all allied ground forces the allies moved 600 km in 3 months June to September 1944, from the Normandy beaches to Brussels, Belgium.
Then Eisenhower arrogantly took over as C-in-C of all ground forces from September 1st and the allies barely moved 100km for the next six months with even a retreat in the Ardennes.
Eisenhower was an utter disaster as C-in-C with his ridiculous broad front strategy wasting countless men and material in failed secondary campaigns in the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace.
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
It's hard for me to consider a leader great whose primary concern was his own glorification in victory and the avoidance of accountability in defeat.
Not even by a longshot. Manstein was undoubtedly the most skilled. Bernie got his ass handed to him by Walter Model in my home country.
Monty got his ass handed to him in France, N. Africa, Germany and France again.
Market Garden was a huge failure and it was Monty that planned and ordered it.
@@ZacharyDarkes How can this channel even title this video like this? He only defeated Rommel after the Germans were severely overstretched. Even then Monty waited untill his slave soldiers from the colonies arrived to inflate their numbers.
@@jackjones9460 Don’t forget the Netherlands! Honestly how can you even entertain the notion that Monty was one of the greatest? Perhaps one of the greatest egomaniac’s of the war.
@@jackjones9460 No he didn't, he beat the Germans at El Alamein and knocked them out of France, Belgium, Brussels and Northern Germany.
Please keep up the good work
The best commander of WW2 was Bill Slim
You can't compare. Different theatres, different enemies.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Slim and Montgomery both abused children.
@@MarkHarrison733 Reported.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Montgomery and Slim should have both been prosecuted for the abuse.
William Slim was the best
At abusing children?
1:16 in any conflict u should know the 1st casualty is the truth, always been since recorded time.
I angrily clicked on this
He was not bad but he is nowhere near the best...
In the west he was. Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2.
Correct predicting El Alamein to last around 2 weeks and Normandy to last 3 months was brilliant. Nobody else had the same foresight.
Got stopped in Sicily and during market garden.
@lyndoncmp5751 he also screwed up Sicily and market garden was a disaster. Nobody else had his mistakes either.
@@theodoresmith5272
He didnt screw up in Sicily. Sicily was done and dusted in just 6 weeks and was extremely successful.
I think you'll find that the Hurtgen Forest and Lorraine campaigns were far bigger and more costly failures than Market Garden. Market Garden was actually the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Nearly 100km of German held ground taken in just 3 days. How long did Patton fail against Metz for? Or Hodges in the Hurtgen? And which American commander was responsible for falling asleep in the Ardennes and allowing the Germans to push them into a retreat, inflicting nearly 100,000 needless casualties? You think Market Garden was worse than the Hurtgen, Lorraine and Ardennes? 😂
What an ignorant comment!!
Monty and Mark Clark are about equal in my eyes.
But Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Montgomery was a disaster.
Hmmmnnn no
He loved his bois…
I reckon The Awk could’ve had Rommel given the time and rescources Montague was given . 🇮🇪
@DaveSCameron
I'll defer to Von Mellenthin:
"Auchinleck was an excellent strategist with many of the qualities of a great commander but he seems to have failed in tactical detail, or perhaps in ability to make his subordinates do what he wanted. His offensives were costly, unsuccessful and from a tactical point of view extremely muddled. In the light of the July battles I think Churchill acted wisely in making a change. During August we heard of important changes of command on the British side. General Alexander had replaced Auchinleck and General Montgomery had taken over command of Eighth Army. There can be no question that the fighting efficiency of the British improved vastly under the new leadership, and for the first time Eighth Army had a commander who really, made his will felt throughout the whole force. Montgomery is undoubtedly a great tactician, circumspect
and thorough in making his plans, utterly ruthless in carrying them out. He brought a new spirit to Eighth Army, and
illustrated once again the vital importance of personal leadership in war"
From Von Mellenthin: Panzer Battles, Chapter IX Farewell To Africa, pages 137/138.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Yeah the Auk had to do things himself, he couldn't get his subordinate to work well together. Monty got everyone on board.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-
Montgomery's ability to rally the troops and instill greater morale and fighting spirit can never be overstated. He made sure everyone who who he was and what he wanted.
@@lyndoncmp5751 He really loved little boys.
I’m interested to hear what “Monty” did well. Every recounting I’ve heard made him seem to fumble through while others around him won or lost without much help from him.
Well, commanding the land forces on D-day I believe. How's that?
@@rob5944 Eisenhower says hello.
@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu
Montgomery was C-in-C of all allied ground forces in Normandy. Under Montgomery as C-in-C the allies moved 600 km in 3 months June to September 1944, from the Normandy beaches to Brussels, Belgium.
Then Eisenhower arrogantly too over as C-in-C of all ground forces from September 1st and the allies barely moved 100km for the next six months with even a retreat in the Ardennes.
Eisenhower was an utter disaster as C-in-C with his ridiculous broad front strategy wasting countless men and material in failed secondary campaigns in the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace.
He was terrible in Operation Market Garden. He was no way the greatest. Most top generals in the war were superior to him.
He wasn't even involved in Market Garden......
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The UK and its defunct empire was only a satellite of the United States by 1941.
Bernard is not prounounced BerNARD but Bernad.
Bit like the way they mangle 'Colin' and pronounce it as 'Coal-in'
I always thought Patton was the best
Patton is overrated.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- And do you have any sources for that?
@@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu Just look at the facts he showed up when the hard work was done by others like Monty and Bradley and didn't defeat any significant German forces.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That's a conversation for Eisenhower, and not Patton. Unless you wanted him to go rogue, in which case Patton frequently would as he had absolutely nothing but the strongest intentions of discipline for his soldiers, which put him at odds with people higher than him. He didn't intend to be likeable, unlike Monty, but he knew exactly waht it would take.
Patton would frequently skirt regulations that held back the military. Guy had brass like none other. And if you look at Sicily, he absolutely outpaced, and outplayed Monty.
His hunches made him FEARED by guys like Rommel. Monty in all his time fighting in North Africa was too concerned about not losing resources, rather than capitalizing on weak points, instead waiting to build up for many weeks and then months, before playing into weak positioning.
Have you read ANYTHING about military tactics, or battles like Bastogne?
@@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu "His hunches made him FEARED by guys like Rommel"
He was never feared, do you know what feared actually means? It means avoiding the opponent in battle at whatever cost.
Hannibal was avoided after the Romans were crushed at Cannae, Napoleon was avoided at Dresden when the Coalition armies were about to fall back when they heard he arrived, so was the Duke of Marlborough when the French armies hid behind fortresses instead of fighting him in open battle ( See Blenheim, Ramilles and Oudenarde as to why the French avoided him).
Patton was NEVER feared. Complete myth.
No! And I mean NO FN WAY!!
No he was not after what happened in operation market garden
Market Garden was actually the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Nearly 100km of German held ground taken in just 3.
Other commanders had far bigger failures such as the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine, Alsace and Ardennes.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The failure of Market Garden extended World War II by 6-7 months, together with the publication of the Morgenthau Plan for genocide.
@@MarkHarrison733 It was the Broad front strategy that did.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The Allies should have focused on Antwerp in September 1944.
the British were kinda just in the way for the Americans
And whats that supposed to mean exactly?
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The British and Commonwealth forces were defeated everywhere until the US had flooded the entire North African theatre with artillery, tanks, air power, ammunition, food, medicine, fuel etc.
@@MarkHarrison733 No they were not the British beat the Germans at Tobruk and Operation Crusader both before any US involvement. Stop lying.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The US was already at war with Germany in 1940, as Admiral King had confirmed at the time.
A lot better than Patton but nowhere near the best!
And how was he better than Patton? Just being a stuck up reserved loon is apparently more qualifying than someone he speaks straight, gets the job done, and overachieves, instead of constantly second-guessing himself into the next year in the middle of a world war.
@@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu As a strategist/planner and logistician he was better.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Not so in any way. A logistician would've spent more time second guessing themselves, and never pushing the odds or giving themselves a way to outplay any enemy, than prolonged drawn out skirmishes, and unchanging frontlines. Which are affected only by, once again, logistics. If you play to your fuel source, you narrow your options to a drastic fault. Monty was playing with far less, and even when he did have adequate supply and men, he struggled on the offensive.
Guy was good on defense, but on offense, he was known for failures and his ego costed him more than any insight he could've held, as evidenced by his reactionary-based commanding in nearly every theatre and retreat he fought in.
@@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu " but on offense, he was known for failures "
El Alamein was on the offense, was that a failure?
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
Y'all need to bring the background music back that you used to have.
NO!
I had to comment just for the "laugh" emoji. Greatest general of WWII? Not unless you're a British fanboi. More like "Most Overrated". 😆😆😆
Patton is just as overrated.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Never claimed he was, but thanks for confirming my point about "fanbois". 🙄
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The US won the war in the West.
@@MarkHarrison733 Sure they did, wouldn't have done anything without the millions of British and Commonwealth soldiers.
General Patton was far better, and frequently exceeded expectations and records. Montgomery was inoffensive, waited on his chances, and generally followed the playbook to an extreme, making him rather unexciting.
So no, he wasn't the 'greatest' commander, but was the most archetypical and expectant of what comes with the definition of 'commander' but in no ways did he transcend it.
If he was better than why wasn't he in command of all allied landing forces but side lined for D-day instead?
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Because of preferential social justice politics and strict rigor of wanting to confine to regulations. Patton frequently skirted rules and discipline to capitalize on moments far before their commander's could step in and chickenshit their way out of it.
It seems like you're more interested in attacking him for not trying to be a likeable guy, when he had every other intention and priority pointing towards him getting the job done and well by all means necessary. Guy was an absolute hero, and pushed people to their max, regardless of the callousness of people above him. Exactly the kind of coach you'd want.
Under Montgomery as C-in-C of all allied ground forces the allies moved 600 km in 3 months June to September 1944, from the Normandy beaches to Brussels, Belgium.
Then Eisenhower arrogantly took over as C-in-C of all ground forces from September 1st and the allies barely moved 100km for the next six months with even a retreat in the Ardennes.
Eisenhower was an utter disaster as C-in-C with his ridiculous broad front strategy wasting countless men and material in failed secondary campaigns in the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace.
@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu
Stop watching Hollywood films. Even Patton's boss General Bradley said Patton was "a shallow commander" who's only tactic was to bull ahead and "never seemed to think through campaigns, seldom made a careful estimation of the situation" etc etc.
@@lyndoncmp5751 If anything Hollywood had to TAME depictions of him, at risk of offending the general audience, corporations, and the military industrial complex norms at large.
If you think he was just rushing in headfirst aggressively and nothing else, you have a very shallow and narrow minded view on history. Lot more factors and depth than that, aside from training, how you counter and risk-take, timing, and excessive, EXCESSIVE coordination (more so than what you need on defense) and MOVEMENT to top it all off. They were trained to make successful strokes from one start to finish in many cases, as opposed to rugged back and forth trenchline/skirmish behaviors from older military generals.
But apparently you can only see the surface instead of the reality at large.
No , I don't think so
No
WTF? he was not even an OK commander in wII.
No. Patton or Zhukov
Zhukov is the greatest
What did Patton do to be considered the best? Chasing a broken German army already defeated by other commanders ( Monty and Bradley) is hardly worthy of being on this list.
Zhukovs casualty ratios were enormous, while Patton was never in the thick of any of the big western front battles and never faced a premier Waffen SS panzer division or Tiger battalion. He mostly faced second rate rabble in periphery sectors.
No.
N O
No, next question.
What a joke...he was awful
No, he was not.
the worst
The worst are Clark, Fredendall, Percival.
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery. Nobody.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Montgomery did not win anything.
US supplies did.
@@MarkHarrison733 Tell that to the RAF, Royal Artillery and the 195,000 soldiers.
Russian generals Jukov, Rokosovsky etc. won this war. This generals coordinated with millions souldiers.😂😂😂 Paton and Mothonery just little kids.
Nah, all laden with canon fodder..
Not even close. Patton was much more successful and Lord Alexander of Tunis did all the heavy lifting in North Africa.
@smithwesson7765
Are you serious?
Between Monty and Patton...
Monty commanded more men, was concerned with bigger issues, and achieved greater successes. Normandy was Monty's success, and the Allied armies attained the areas that Monty had made as objectives for the campaign 3 days sooner than had originally been intended.
Patton, by contrast, never commanded anything more than an army and was much of a tactical commander. His greatest success is the rush from Normandy to Metz and the 90 degree wheel in the Bulge... but the former was against a German army that had already been beaten by the slogging match in the Normandy campaign and the later was against the flank of a German attack that was beginning to run out of fuel and manpower. At Metz, where Patton faced a dug in and determined enemy... Patton was stopped dead by French and German made fortifications, some of which going all the way back to the 1800s.
Patton was only more successful in a dopey Holywood movie, not in reality.
So funny how everyone here think they know it all. 👎🏻
I don't even need to watch this to tell you no, not even close. Market Garden disqualifies him from this right off the start.
Along with his sausage jockeying behaviour of course…😂
A plan that was approved by an American and failed because of Americans is all the fault of Brit? Care to explain?
and yet Zhuikov got an entire front killed on the Rzhev salient and yet is called one of the "greats" or how patton got his army stuck in a forest gaining nothing but bleeding his formations and yet its also called one of the "greats" (lmao, Ike and bradley deserve much more credit than patton)
Monty was a great commander but hardly the best.. Like saying Mark Clark was great when he was far from it.
@@Star_Gazing_Coffee_Lover
I never heard Mark Clark being mentioned except at LSU where he graduated! What good do you know of him doing?
No
all i have is lmfao, your kidding right?
Hard no. Next question please.
No. No he was not.
No. That title is most likely Nimitz's (which he'd refuse to accept or even acknowledge) with close competition from Zhukov (who thought and believed it anyway). Remember the Russian had to fight the enemy, climate, turgid technological progress and the Kremlin all of which were highly experienced assassins. Nimitz started with the least resources and the most complicated strategic challenge; and a ruthless attitude towards under-performing staff which got him over the edge. Had Stirling not been captured he might have risen very high very quickly, a truly agile mind and (sad to say) the breeding to allay the war cabinet's arrogance. Marshall deserves some thought, his contribution was turning a socialist president inside out and backwards.
Montgomery was the most successful Western Allied ground commander of WW2 by some way. He took more ground through more countries while facing more quality German opposition than any other Western Allied ground commander in WW2. Nobody did more to help win the ground war in the west than Bernard Montgomery.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The question posed was not specific to terrain, or lack of it.
Even so I doubt if Monty would have stood up to Winston when he embarked on his Greece, Dodecanese, Soft Underbelly strategic distractions. Thus denying his immediate predecessors that 'land' claim in the worthless soil of Nth Africa. Especially if they had received the materiel support Monty insisted upon prior to Alamein.
Furthermore the US breakout from Normandy went deep into France which probably gives the lie to your 'more ground' approach.
Monty was mostly competent but he needed a timeout like Patton 'earned' to stay ahead of anyone else in this comparison. Model handed him some very sharp lessons in battlefield management, as would have Guderian or any number of Nazi professionals.
@@peterclark6290
Model didn't hand Montgomery anything. 100km of Model's ground in the Netherlands was taken by Montgomery in the Netherlands in just 3 days. Market Garden was the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Only Arnhem failed but Arnhem was purely air planned and air fought. Montgomery had no real input into Arnhem because the air commanders took over it.
Zhukovs casualty rate was appalling. Montgomery would never have suffered those casualty rates. He didn't even around Caen where he faced the densest concentration of German armour ever deployed in WW2 (7 panzer divisions and 3 Tiger battalions just around Caen).
Zhukov couldn't even keep the Cherkassy-Korsun Pocket closed.
You ARE aware that Montgomery took 2,500km of ground in North Africa when he chased Rommel out, right? You ARE aware Montgomery took 500km of ground in Italy in late 1943 before he was brought back to England to command the ground forces for Normandy, right? Montgomery advanced across Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Italian mainland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and into Denmark. No other western allied general did anything even remotely on that level. None.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Yeah James Holland said he took more territory than any other commander, i guess that's what John peate meant when he said he advanced through 9 countries.
@@lyndoncmp5751 None of those clearly disputable 'facts' would change my mind. His pettiness, egotism and sensitivity were serious shortcomings that exclude him from consideration for the question as posed.
What most excludes from consideration was his maintenance of feuds with Patton, Bradley, even Ike which is militarily unconscionable in massive joint actions. Especially when without their nation's resources he'd be better used inspecting Home Guard preparedness.
BTW I don't dislike Monty, he just never approached 'greatness'. Too political is my guess.
Zhukov fought with what he had (not much if you know about that front) and together with Rokossovsky did *the most of all the allies* to hand defeat to the Germans by several degrees of magnitude. Their losses however do take them out of contention. Boosted yet again by the rarely acknowledged contribution provided by their access to US technology.
* sips beer and shrugs * i mean he's alriiight *
The most successful and cleverest the western allies had.
I had often thought Monte was the worst of the WW2 Generals due to his disaster at Market Garden and less than stellar performance at Caan. His big claim to fame was defeating Rommel at the battle of Al Alamein, however he had the benefit of having about twice the men, machines and fuel as Rommel. Not to mention, Montgomery also had the luxury of having the German codes so he knew everything Rommel was going to do. So the main battle he has gotten credit for being a great General, was really his to lose. Let's all be thankful Monte didn't get the role of Supreme Allied Commander for D-Day or we might all be speaking German today.
Montgomery was Allied Ground Forces Commander for D-Day, and was the final author of Operation Overlord, and was ultimately responsible for the execution of the plan and command of all Allied Armies - British and American - until Eisenhower took direct control of the Ground Forces on September 1st 1944, and Montgomery was the only member of the Allied High Command who was prepared to launch the invasion on June 3rd - Tedder was opposed due to bad weather forecast, Ramsay was reluctant for the same reason, and Eisenhower postponed the call for a few more days until all his subordinates were happy.
If the campaign had been lost then Montgomery would have been the man blamed for that failure. Eisenhower may have written a pre-empting letter claiming ultimate responsibility but the fact that Montgomery had been in charge on the ground would have outweighted that letter in the eyes of history.
Market Garden was still the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Nearly 100km of German held ground taken in just 3 days.
At Caen, Montgomery faced the densest concentration of German armour ever deployed in WW2.
I don't know of any other commander who managed to get through 7 panzer divisions and 3 Tiger battalions so quickly, and with relatively low casualties.
Rommel was also reading Monty's mail because of American errors. Check out that US debacle.
At least Europe would still be European.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Market Garden was a complete failure.
Georgy Zhukov is the greatest commander of WW2
If you like high ratios of casualties.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Yeah he was real butcher
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-
And even when he had the Germans trapped shut in the Cherkassy-Korsun Pocket in Jan-February 1944, they still got away.
@@lyndoncmp5751 If Britain is where Russia was and face the same German onslaught from Operation Barbarossa, Montgomery would have suffered high ratio of casualty, and lost.
@@landongsi
Montgomery at Caen faced a denser concentration of German armour than Zhukov ever faced and never suffered anywhere near the same casualties as Zhukov. Zhukov was taking unnecessary high casualties even in 1944/45.
is this a joke or parody?
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️General S Parton was Greatest Commander of WW2.
Let's be honest here.
Who's General Parton?
No Slim was better and Creighton Abrams and Collins were also better than Patton.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Slim was only good at abusing children.
@@MarkHarrison733 Stop lying.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Slim should have been prosecuted for the abuse he committed in Australia.