Was General Bernard Montgomery a gob....?

jonniebgood1

Snickers Man wrote: »

First off: Terry Prone calling anybody a gob****e brings to mind the old proverb which begins "Athnionn cuireoig..." Why the air-headed opinions of this PR Flack are so frequently canvassed by RTE is beyond me.

The reason she is so frequently canvassed is quite obvious. It an example of the nepotistical tendancies of our Public service (National broadcaster on this occasion). Perhaps I am cynical on this but I think her husband being chairman of RTE (Tom Savage) may have a role in her being chosen to explain to us how Montgomery was a Gob****e. Her son is Anton savage being also hard to listen to IMO.
My apologies for taking this off topic.

indioblack

MarchDub wrote: »

"War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military."

Georges Clemenceau

"War is too important to be left to the politicians"
General Jack Ripper.
Dr.Strangelove - couldn't resist it.

mooney1959

"Personally, my whole attention was given to defeating the rebels but it never bothered me a bit how many houses were burnt. I think I regarded all civilians as 'Shinners' and I never had any dealings with any of them. My own view is that to win a war of this sort, you must be ruthless."

Not good!

Whilst based in Cork he wrote a manual of approx 20 sides seeking to pass on useful tactics to the troops relieving him. I've not read it but I think it might make interesting reading.

(On the other hand a close relative of his was killed by Collins' squad on Bloody Sunday 21.11.20 a few days before he arrived in Ireland)

ChicagoJoe

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The reason she is so frequently canvassed is quite obvious. It an example of the nepotistical tendancies of our Public service (National broadcaster on this occasion). Perhaps I am cynical on this but I think her husband being chairman of RTE (Tom Savage) may have a role in her being chosen to explain to us how Montgomery was a Gob****e. Her son is Anton savage being also hard to listen to IMO.
My apologies for taking this off topic.

Just like boards.ie Oscar

Jellybaby1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

.....I think the comment in question is more reflection on said Ms Prone than anything else....

Manach wrote: »

I have only the vaguest of ideas who or what on earth is Terry Prone.

Delancey wrote: »

Montgomery was a complex character and like most of the ' great ' generals of the War it is unwise to use one word to describe him , to that extent calling him a '' Gobsh1te '' is unhelpful. :rolleyes:

dpe wrote: »

Maybe Ms. Prone should pick up less of her history from Band of Brothers....

Delancey wrote: »

...I think it fair to say that everyone here agrees to dismiss ' Monty ' as a gobsh1te is both childish and shows little understanding of the man or War itself.

CDfm wrote: »

Why are we discussing Terry Prone calling Montgomery a gob****e as if it was a serious analysis.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

...Perhaps I am cynical on this but I think her husband being chairman of RTE (Tom Savage) may have a role in her being chosen to explain to us how Montgomery was a Gob****e.

Just came across this thread, and except for the fact that Ms Prone has prompted it, the subject of Montgomery which came up here before some time ago, and is always an interesting subject. The older thread was a good read and had a link to an interview with him. Ms Prone though is not a historian, she runs a PR company and is married to Tom Savage, top brass in RTE, she is often invited to take part in programmes airing her opinions and showing her lack of knowledge on a myriad of subjects. She likes to test the waters to see if she's still 'got it'!

Edit: As Oscar Wilde once said....."The only thing worse than being talked about.....is not being talked about." It's all a PR exercise to impress the clients.

Del.Monte

Lot of closed accounts in this thread - where's everybody gone? :eek:

Big_Evil

Very old thread indeed, but had to comment:

Prones comments on Monty were a bit harsh. If she commenting on Monty as a PR man, she was bang on the money. Some of his utterances post Normandy beggared belief, but that is neither here nor there.

Militarily, Monty was the master of the set piece. When everything went to plan and schedule, he demonstrated a level of control and focus that few generals could ever display.

This was also his greatest weakness. Monty cut his teeth on the Western Front in WW1 where the only military doctrine was the set piece, regardless of what the reality on the battle field actually was. In other words, he had no concept of thinking on the fly and making adjustments to the battle plan to suit the conditions in front of him.

The most notable example of this was the failure to clear the Antwerp approaches - this had a dramatic and devastating impact on Allied supply lines thru 1944 and into 1945 and greatly hampered the movement of men and armour.

This brings me onto Market Garden. This is an example of where Monty did display some element of taking advantage of the situation, and looking get across the Rhine quickly. Unfortunately, because of British delay and failure at Antwerp along with horrendous planning of the Market Garden operation, it was doomed to failure.

His eyes were on a bigger prize anyway: he envisioned that post Market Garden, the road to Berlin was open and a direct drive (by British troops of course) would end the war quickly.

One thing that is not often mentioned is that Monty was central in the repulse of Germanys Ardenne offensive.

His famed ability to take control of a situation when the American lines were crumbling and on the verge of turning into a full scale retreat inititally stalled the German drive west before pushing them back to their start lines.

His conduct afterward the Bulge, however, was horrendous. His play to the press was extremely divisive and posed the greatest threat to the US/British alliance throughout the war.

The overall view on Monty is quite mixed. He was a hero to the British, and loved by the troops under his command.
He was absolutely hated by his American counterparts, and Eisenhower should be commended for keeping him in check.

Monty was a product of a war that was fought a generation earlier and with a much different mindset. It should also be noted that British power on the world stage as this point has diminished greatly. While he was 'noisy' in his proclamations on British greatness, it would have been painfully obvious to him (as it was to Churchill), that the real decision makers in the war were the Russians and the Americans, with Britain being a bit player.

A very complex individual indeed.

It should also be noted that the Americans had their own version of a divisive leader in the shape of Patton. A very different type of man to Monty, but his conduct has lead to much heated debate for many years since the war ended.

Bog Man 1

Montgomery actions in training his troops to retreat when a lot of other Generals thought the BEF was going to sweep the Germans back to Berlin was crucial to them reaching Dunkirk fairly intact. He informed his officers that the Germans were the best army in Europe and were not going to be beaten easily so most of their training was based on retreat .
My fathers unit was inspected by Montgomery as they got ready to go to Normandy and he never had a bad word to say about him Certainly not Gob****e .
As for Terry Prone her judgement on any issue must be questioned because when she had opportunity to make good decisions she did not . She was closely involved with the Catholic Church in the early 70,s

Manach

Was Monty a showman, yes and an explanation on this might be best summed up in "After Hitler" by Jones. The example was how he stage managed the German surrender in Northern Europe, down to handling the lighting. To the British public, in news dominated by the then dominant US/USSR war efforts, it provided a much needed boost in morale that their troops/efforts were still relevant.

@Bog Man 1: since ad hominen is your style, perhaps you'd consider off the wall tangentials make the poster seem less than ... poised.

Jesus.

Its something of a mystery how a defeat such as Dunkirk was turned into some sort of victory.

Bravo British PR!

Fratton Fred

Jesus. wrote: »

Its something of a mystery how a defeat such as Dunkirk was turned into some sort of victory.

Bravo British PR!

Why is it a mystery?

Britain effectively stood alone against an army that had conquered western Europe in a matter of days.

It's main army was surrounded and facing total annihilation or surrender with the possible hope being that maybe 50 to 100,000 men could be rescued. The fact that 340,000 made it back was cause for celebration.

It wasn't considered a victory, but it helped create the Dunkirk spirit which played a huge part in getting Britain through the war.

indioblack

Jesus. wrote: »

Its something of a mystery how a defeat such as Dunkirk was turned into some sort of victory.

Bravo British PR!

As Churchill pointed out, when it was all over, "Wars are not won by evacuations".
Nicholas Harman's "The Necessary Myth" provides a good explanation.

Jellybaby1

Jesus. wrote: »

Its something of a mystery how a defeat such as Dunkirk was turned into some sort of victory.

Bravo British PR!

Ditto our 'victorious' 1916 Rising!

Bravo Irish PR!

Big_Evil

It was no doubt a defeat in military terms, when looked at in isolation, but where it becomes crucial, is when you look at how it changed the course of the war insofar, the planned invasion of Britain became much more difficult from a German point of view, ad Britain now had an army at home capable of defending.

If the BEF were annihilated at Dunkirk, Britain would have been virtually defenseless, and open for invasion.

Of course, the RAF would still have needed to be subdued, and German landing craft would have had to run the gauntlet of the Royal Navy.......

Big_Evil

Jesus. wrote: »

Its something of a mystery how a defeat such as Dunkirk was turned into some sort of victory.

Bravo British PR!

Indeed. Bear in mind though, Britain were now alone. They were in absolutely no position to take any offensive action against Germany.

Churchill had to prepare a nation for a war that they could never win alone and with no immediate prospect of help, he had to create an image of unbeaten and unbowed.

After Dunkirk, there was no good news on the ware in Britain until Americas entry in 1941, and the victories in North Africa that followed (where Monty was flagged as the hero for defeating Rommel)

Arsemageddon

Seems to me that whether or not Monty was a gobsh1te depends on how you define the word gobsh1te. I've always understood it to mean someone who has a very high opinion of themselves (whether justified or not) and has no hesitation in sharing this high opinion with others i.e. someone who frequently talks sh1te but is essentially a decent person.

Using this definition I have to concur with Terry Prone. Given the way Monty conducted himself toward towards the Americans particularly after D-Day I think 'gobsh1te' is a fair description. In a similar vein I would consider Monty's great rival Patton as a bit of a Gobsh1te as well. This doesn't mean I think either was in any way incompetent or not to be admired.

Jesus.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why is it a mystery? Britain effectively stood alone against an army that had conquered western Europe in a matter of days.
It's main army was surrounded and facing total annihilation or surrender with the possible hope being that maybe 50 to 100,000 men could be rescued. The fact that 340,000 made it back was cause for celebration.It wasn't considered a victory, but it helped create the Dunkirk spirit which played a huge part in getting Britain through the war.

The fact is it was a defeat although not as crushing a one as it should have been given that the Germans inexplicably didn't press home their attack.

>>>MOD EDIT: Part of comment deleted... Keep it on topic please<<<