Bernard Montgomery

Approval Rate: n/a%

Approval ratio

Reviews 4

Sort by:
  • by


    Fri Jan 08 2010

    Well, certainly Montgomery was not as good as he felt he was but even so he was far better than most give him credit for. I reviewed another thing about Monty on this site before and I stand by what I said then, there are some ridiculous double standards as far as Montgomery is concerned. When Rommel defeat the British pre-Monty in North Africa with the advantage of better weapons and incredibly in depth information about his enemy (due to an American liason officer's reports to Washington being intercepted and Italians intercepting British Radio transmissions) it was because he was a genius. Doesn't matter that he had major advantages over the British that negated their numerical superiority, that's got nothing to do with it apparently, it was all because he was a genius for warfare. Yet when Montgomery defeated Rommel at El Alamein it was "only" because he had manpower superiority and better intelligence. Doesn't matter Rommel defeated British commanders before Monty who enjoyed si... Read more

  • by


    Fri May 14 2004

    Montgomry seems to have been the beneficiary of much more adulation by the British than he deserved. They needed someone to cast as a great hero, and Monty somehow or other filled the bill. He really was a pompous ass, but had enough charisma and pseudo-flamboyance to win the day in the public eye. From what I've read, he was pretty much of an intolerant martinet, and certainly didn't like to be upstaged by anyone. His ego far outmatched what I consider to have been his military acumen. All of his constant prissy preoccupation with tidying up the situation really limited his ability to act decisively at times. Given enough time, men, and materiel support (as Montgomery operated), almost anyone could have won the victories he did. I don't see him in the same league as Patton, Rommel, or generals like Terry de la Mesa Allen. He was not a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants general by any stretch of the imagination. Not much imagination, flexibility, or aggressiveness. He once made a ... Read more

  • by


    Sun Mar 14 2004

    Not as useless as American historians make him, nor as brilliant as British ones do. Creates a complete clusterf*** at Arnhem, but is pretty competent in the desert.

  • by


    Sat Mar 13 2004

    British general. While not exactly a person of great humility and self sacrifice, he was fairly competent a lot of the time. Unfortunately he let his desire for personal glory warp his better judgment, and he made a lot of mistakes. I'd have traded him for a Manstein or a Guderian in a heartbeat.