MONTGOMERY – A GREAT COMMANDER? Even Montgomery’s severest critics would acknowledge his ability to reduce highly complex matters to a form intelligible to everybody, his mastery of logistics, his abilities as a teacher and a trainer at all levels, his singlemindedness and his unshakeable belief in final victory. Similarly his admirers would not deny that he was vain, boastful, socially inept and not someone to whom people automatically warmed. In analysing Montgomery it is difficult to separate his personal character from his ability as a commander, for while nice chaps don’t necessarily win wars, warfare is a team effort and the commander has to be able to carry his subordinates along with him. That Montgomery did carry his subordinates with him cannot be denied, for he was ruthless in getting rid of those whom he could not, and in every posting from corps commander upwards he endeavoured to take with him those with whom he had worked and whom he knew would support his policies.
Canadian military historian Terry Copp calls Montgomery “a very average general”, and I tend to agree. Other than Simonds, one of Montgomery’s acolytes, the Canadian officers weren’t terribly impressed either, and Crerar and Monty loathed each other.
Canadian military historian Terry Copp calls Montgomery “a very average general”, and I tend to agree. Other than Simonds, one of Montgomery’s acolytes, the Canadian officers weren’t terribly impressed either, and Crerar and Monty loathed each other.