Book Recommendations: Field Marshall Montgomery

[ecc]

Hello fellow Clarets,

I'm currently reading Antony Beevor's excellent "Ardennes 1944" and I find myself wanting to read more about Montgomery. He was certainly a rather difficult person by all accounts. I'd like to read a "balanced" biography if there is one. Apparently Nigel Hamilton is the historian who has written the most books about Monty but, apparently, he is not overly objective about him.

I'd be very grateful to read people's thoughts/recommendations.

Many thanks!

[dushanbe]

Not a book recommendation but the ‘we have ways of making you talk’ podcast has various Monty episodes. Quite a divisive subject

[CaptJohn]

"Daylight Robbery" by Dominic Frisby.
Looks at taxation through the ages and how taxes have caused major issues throughout history. Interesting views on how taxes will influence our future. Well worth a read and a must for anyone interested in looking after their money/investments.

[ElectroClaret]

Ive also read Ardennes 44. Very good book, with a wealth of detail.
Remember assorted comments about Monty from various historians, he seemed to have a talent for rubbing people up the wrong way. Patton despised him and I'm sure the feeling was mutual. Bradley, Eisenhower's second in command also didn't get on with him and Ike only tolerated him because he was the senior British commander.
Beevors Stalingrad is also a good read if you haven't seen it yet.

[bfcmik]

Ive also read Ardennes 44. Very good book, with a wealth of detail.
Remember assorted comments about Monty from various historians, he seemed to have a talent for rubbing people up the wrong way. Patton despised him and I'm sure the feeling was mutual. Bradley, Eisenhower's second in command also didn't get on with him and Ike only tolerated him because he was the senior British commander.
Beevors Stalingrad is also a good read if you haven't seen it yet.

And he wasn't very fond of them either. Their dislike for him was mainly as a result of what they saw as indecisiveness and over attention to saving the lives of as many of his soldiers as possible whilst they were more inclined to be rather 'gung-ho' and overly careless of the lives of the troops and equipment they controlled in his opinion.

Much of that relates to national spirit and upbringing, in my opinion, we Brits, as a small island nation, had always had to consider the tightness of the national finances, low manpower and shortages of equipment/supply whilst the Americans had plentiful quantities of all of those.

[JohnMac]

I read his Memoirs many years, ago and remember he was a tough bugger with a streak bordering on obstinate. Had a bit of chip I think as he wasn't one of the 'wealthy set' and served in a 'County' Regiment.

I think being 'British' in every sense of the word ensured a natural dislike of him from the US Generalship. They were definitely less in tune with their Soldiers than us.

[bobinho]

Nowt wrong with obstinate John.... it's a family trait!

[Jeffbfc]

And he wasn't very fond of them either. Their dislike for him was mainly as a result of what they saw as indecisiveness and over attention to saving the lives of as many of his soldiers as possible whilst they were more inclined to be rather 'gung-ho' and overly careless of the lives of the troops and equipment they controlled in his opinion.

Have read lots of books, articles on WW2, the Normandy landings and especially the battles in the British, Canadian sections around Caen.
It was decided at the top level that the British with the Canadians would take on the main German armoured divisions ( which was mainly the elite SS divisions) so not to have the US troops and especially the American public demoralised.
This was even kept secret to the main commanders on the ground.
Monty new this, so he probably was justified to be more concerned about his troops.
On a side note the American troops reported constantly engaging Tiger tanks but no Tigers were in the american area for weeks and the first ones engaged were on a train being taken back to be repaired.

[ecc]

Thank you everybody.

[Billy Balfour]

And he wasn't very fond of them either. Their dislike for him was mainly as a result of what they saw as indecisiveness and over attention to saving the lives of as many of his soldiers as possible whilst they were more inclined to be rather 'gung-ho' and overly careless of the lives of the troops and equipment they controlled in his opinion.

Much of that relates to national spirit and upbringing, in my opinion, we Brits, as a small island nation, had always had to consider the tightness of the national finances, low manpower and shortages of equipment/supply whilst the Americans had plentiful quantities of all of those.

Another reason was the price 'we' paid in blood for the blunders of the WW1 generals. Montgomery didn't want to go down in history in the same way that Haig had. Montgomery always had an eye on posterity.

[Billy Balfour]

Another shout here for Beevor's Stalingrad and also his Berlin: The Downfall, 1945.

[bfcmik]

Another reason was the price 'we' paid in blood for the blunders of the WW1 generals. Montgomery didn't want to go down in history in the same way that Haig had. Montgomery always had an eye on posterity.

I saw a Monty interview with the famous historian Lord Taylor where he describes how his experiences as an officer in the trenches in WW1 affected how he believed tactics needed to move away from using troops as cannon fodder.https://youtu.be/H1dz3pqbRaw

[Clarets4me]

And he wasn't very fond of them either. Their dislike for him was mainly as a result of what they saw as indecisiveness and over attention to saving the lives of as many of his soldiers as possible whilst they were more inclined to be rather 'gung-ho' and overly careless of the lives of the troops and equipment they controlled in his opinion.

Much of that relates to national spirit and upbringing, in my opinion, we Brits, as a small island nation, had always had to consider the tightness of the national finances, low manpower and shortages of equipment/supply whilst the Americans had plentiful quantities of all of those.

Having read more books on WW2 than I care to remember, I believe this to be an excellent summary ..... he was socially awkward, to the point of rudeness, but a brilliant General ...

[Billy Balfour]

I saw a Monty interview with the famous historian Lord Taylor where he describes how his experiences as an officer in the trenches in WW1 affected how he believed tactics needed to move away from using troops as cannon fodder.https://youtu.be/H1dz3pqbRaw

That looks interesting, Mik. Thanks for posting the link. I'll watch it later.