- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Re: Brad
Posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball from Zephyr ON Canada on April 21, 1999 at 09:10:46:
In Reply to: Re: Maj/Gen R Rohmer/Monty posted by Brad Sallows on April 20, 1999 at 20:52:15:
Great summary, Brad! The fact is, I‘ve never seen so much controversy generated by one man. Most of it is, in addition, split along U.S. vs U.K. lines. I personally think Montgomery was the right man for the times, although, like Patton, he definitely had clearly demonstrable strengths and weaknesses. One of his great strengths was in motivating his men, which considering the level of exhaustion in the British Army by 1944, was significant. One of his weaknesses of course, was a tendency to be a little too careful in planning and executing set-piece battles, but most of this comes from hind-sight.
One of the factors which one must consider when appraising the performance of any general officer on the continent that summer is that of politics. There were many pressures to bear on British, Canadian and American leaders from their own governments, and the resulting rivalries and attendant publicity tended to muddy the waters of command more than a little. Eisenhower was picked because of a perceived ability to moderate between these forces, and mostly he did a good job with some noteable exceptions.
I think we must be very wary of the tendency of post-war biographers and historians to adopt the original biases of one side or another. Their background research comes from documents and interviews with the various players of the time, and these of course echo sentiments prevailing in each of those camps. Certainly, no one can deny that after the Germans moved into the Caen sector, the whole game changed. Whether the "Hinge" theory was planned or not is irrelevant, because that‘s precisely the way it worked. Those Panzers could easily have ended up on the American front, and very possibly, the whole history of the Normandy campaign might have ended much differently.
Oh yes, and regarding the gap... everything I‘ve read suggests the Americans stopped Patton because their line of advance was stretched far too thinly, and they didn‘t want to risk his leading units getting cut off and chopped up.
My 2 cents, with regards to all,
Geoff
Maple Leaf Up!
Posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball from Zephyr ON Canada on April 21, 1999 at 09:10:46:
In Reply to: Re: Maj/Gen R Rohmer/Monty posted by Brad Sallows on April 20, 1999 at 20:52:15:
Great summary, Brad! The fact is, I‘ve never seen so much controversy generated by one man. Most of it is, in addition, split along U.S. vs U.K. lines. I personally think Montgomery was the right man for the times, although, like Patton, he definitely had clearly demonstrable strengths and weaknesses. One of his great strengths was in motivating his men, which considering the level of exhaustion in the British Army by 1944, was significant. One of his weaknesses of course, was a tendency to be a little too careful in planning and executing set-piece battles, but most of this comes from hind-sight.
One of the factors which one must consider when appraising the performance of any general officer on the continent that summer is that of politics. There were many pressures to bear on British, Canadian and American leaders from their own governments, and the resulting rivalries and attendant publicity tended to muddy the waters of command more than a little. Eisenhower was picked because of a perceived ability to moderate between these forces, and mostly he did a good job with some noteable exceptions.
I think we must be very wary of the tendency of post-war biographers and historians to adopt the original biases of one side or another. Their background research comes from documents and interviews with the various players of the time, and these of course echo sentiments prevailing in each of those camps. Certainly, no one can deny that after the Germans moved into the Caen sector, the whole game changed. Whether the "Hinge" theory was planned or not is irrelevant, because that‘s precisely the way it worked. Those Panzers could easily have ended up on the American front, and very possibly, the whole history of the Normandy campaign might have ended much differently.
Oh yes, and regarding the gap... everything I‘ve read suggests the Americans stopped Patton because their line of advance was stretched far too thinly, and they didn‘t want to risk his leading units getting cut off and chopped up.
My 2 cents, with regards to all,
Geoff
Maple Leaf Up!
