Broad Front versus Narrow Front: Who was Right?

[Kernow]

And he was more than willing to lose men than to admit his mistakes.

You are corret there OoE, as he said, if I am correct that 'Market Garden was a 90% success

[Officer of Engineers]

You are corret there OoE, as he said, if I am correct that 'Market Garden was a 90% success

The last 10% forced a withdrawal.

[Officer of Engineers]

I am going to say this. We knew who and what Monty was. He was a good General but by no means was he an innovative General. We followed him because we knew he would win but by no means did we had any illusions on how he was going to win.

The Canadians were not the British and we had no wish to be treated as British and that was what Crerar gave us, the First Canadian Army. Crerar established the Canadians as an Army, not Montgomery.

[Kernow]

I totally agree with you on this matter. We had to be commanded by a General, lucky we weren't commanded by Patton, now he was a buffoon.

[zraver]

I totally agree with you on this matter. We had to be commanded by a General, lucky we weren't commanded by Patton, now he was a buffoon.

But he was a buffoon who knew how to win. Starting with his turning what could have been a route, into an advance at Kasserine and with his dash across France he won. His only defeat was a mistaken raid to liberate POW's. Only fortified cities ever slowed him down, other wise he went through the Germans like a hot knife through butter.

[Kernow]

He was relieved of his Command and almost sacked by Eisenhower, therefore he never took part in the Normandy Landings or Overlord, instead he Commanded the Decoy Mission (Op Quicksilver). Battle of the Bulge was good I must admit. He had the nickname 'Our Blood His Guts' (By his men). Very similar to Monty, leading men to their deaths. He was also outspoken like Monty. His views on race were neither negative or positive.

On black soldiers: "Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at the time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor."[

[clackers]

The defence of Hong Kong was a military responsibility. The decision to send the two battalions was a political one. Once the two battalions arrived, their success or failure was due to the British Mission Commander, not the decision to send.

If you really want to defend Crerar's role in this, you should read his biographer Paul Dickson:

http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20...ong%20Kong.pdf

Supporter of Crerar as he is, even he says, with the Canadian government relying on his advice as the Chief of the General Staff: "Crerar should be faulted for his failure to make the potential risks inherent in garrisoning Hong Kong absolutely clear to the government. This was his responsibility."

[Officer of Engineers]

I really hate Armchair generals who failed to understand the military culture and the lack of critical knowledge of the time. Based on what was known, Hong Kong was EXTREMELY defensible. Clog the roads and the Japanese were stopped. It simply did not occurred to anyone that the Japanese would avoid the roads. When talking about modern armies, you're talking roads and the Brits had those clogged.

So, no, I do not blame Crerar or anyone for failing to appreciate what the Japanese saw as the obvious - the IJA was not a modern army.

[clackers]

Are you serious? THE ONLY FORCES CAPABLE of doing Dieppe were the Canadians. Yeah, you can hobble enough British Regts to do it but right off the bat, you're looking at the Canadians. It WAS A NO BRAINER!

I would have thought a long time before signing up my countrymen for any Lord Mountbatten experiment that did not even have the blessings of the Chiefs of Staff, OoE.

And Crerar had lobbied the C-in-C Home Forces for this to happen. It was to be an even more mixed Anglo-Canadian force originally, but Monty urged his superiors that for unity it should really be one or the other. He was happy enough that the 2nd Canadian Division was chosen, and both MacNaughton and Crerar approved the arrangements.

After a false start, Montgomery urged the whole operation be scrapped before he left to command Eighth Army in North Africa, but no one listened.

[clackers]

I have to ask. Did you ever serve?

Not at all. But I don't hold anything against someone who has. Crerar himself never published his memoirs, responding to the rash of postwar books with something along the lines of "Generals should just shutup."

But as Colin Baxter said in Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1887-1976: a selected bibliography

[American Carlo d'Este's] works offer a remarkable combination of outstanding narrative and judicious analysis, free of national bias, an especially rare find in World War II works touching on Montgomery.

His works (they include Decision in Normandy and biographies of Eisenhower and Patton) show that a retired Lt Colonel can write great history with a minimum of national prejudice.

I even think memoirs have their place. They just need to be taken with a bigger grain of salt than other sources.

[clackers]

Do you not read your own posts? The Schelt!

Not even Monty's bitterest enemies would say that you could point to the Scheldt - an operation at a time when Eisenhower had now succeeded Montgomery as Allied land forces commander and was limiting resources to everybody in line with a broadfront strategy, and that ultimately ended in victory - and say that justified what you said.

By that standard, every general in history would be incompetent.

Even Crerar's defender Paul Dickson said:

While Monty must shoulder some blame for haphazard development of the strategic situation, Crerar was also unable to assert control over the operations; buffeted by the opinions of his staff and circumstances, he presented options not plans. He was reaching the end of his tether as he struggled to overcome his deteriorating health. The dysentry, which had racked his body periodically since mid-June, was not responding to treatement.

p354, A thoroughly Canadian general: a biography of General H.D.G. Crerar

[Officer of Engineers]

not at all. But i don't hold anything against someone who has.

What the f_uck is that supposed to mean?

[clackers]

Do you not read your own posts? The Schelt!

No, the Canadian Regiments said so.


In short, NOTHING YOU HAVE POSTED contradict Canadian perception of Monty.

I don't speak for all Australians, OoE.

I'm positive you're not claiming to speak for all Canadians.

The official Canadian war historian, CP Stacy, a serving colonel, AFAIK, is said to have thought " that Montgomery directed a masterful campaign, albeit one that succeeded because of superior numbers and materiel rather than any skill at arms by his troops, and that the performance of the Canadian army was less than sterling, in part because it was new to battle and in part because of the inadequacies of many regimental officers."

Crerar would never have even begun to think of Montgomery as incompetent as you do.

Instead, he said: Crerar wrote before Dieppe that "despite Montgomery's great abilities as a field commander , "political relations, international or inter-Imperial have not been his study ... and these cannot always be reduced to that 'forceful simplicity' which is his special genius in the matter of military operations" Dickson, p204

Leading Canadian historian JL Granatstein (another who served) says of Montgomery's judgments of Crerar and others in The generals: the Canadian army's senior commanders in the Second World War:

The phrasing in Montgomery's private letters was unnecessarily (and regrettably, most characteristically) cruel, but he was ordinarily right in his judgments, and his methods and comments were every bit as harsh on British officers. The "nasty little shit," as Montgomery was widely known in the British army, never forgot that generals led men into situations where they might be killed and where the fate of nations might be decided; he wanted none of the incapable in charge ... Nor did anyone, in truth ...

We know that generals like Simonds and Vokes even imitated Montgomery, so they wouldn't agree with you either.

You've mentioned regimental histories again and again. If you can put up some examples, we can evaluate them against all these authoritative sources.

[clackers]

I am going to say this. We knew who and what Monty was. He was a good General but by no means was he an innovative General. We followed him because we knew he would win but by no means did we had any illusions on how he was going to win.

The Canadians were not the British and we had no wish to be treated as British and that was what Crerar gave us, the First Canadian Army. Crerar established the Canadians as an Army, not Montgomery.

Well, he's gone from an incompetent leader in Post 39 to a good general in Post 48.

If you take a look at the OoB at First Canadian Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Canadian Army was never in action as a Canadian only army. It had Scots, English, Belgians, Americans and Polish attached and at times Canadians were less than 50% of its makeup. There was a contradiction between Crerar's administrative Canadian role and his role as operational commander of a multinational unit.

Nigel Hamilton apparently believes that Crerar was both incompetent and overly nationalistic, but this is hard to sustain.

Monty told Ralston, the Canadian defence minister, that Crerar was adequate, but not a ball of fire and not in the 'same parish' as Simonds, who was not influenced by national ideas ... 'his one idea was to beat the Germans.'

Dickson also notes that Simonds "put military effectiveness before nationalism", something Monty thought necessary for any coalition army. In his 40 division narrow front proposal to Eisenhower in August, Montgomery had even offered to put himself and the rest of the 21st Army Group under Bradley's command if that was more politically acceptable, so keen was he to try to exploit German disorganization and win the war before Christmas.

[Officer of Engineers]

Give it a break, your google-fu is obvious. You have no experience to judge and instead relying on contradictory testimony from one google book to the next.

The most obvious answer to your posts is that neither Crerar, Simmonds, nor Vokes were Montgomery and none of them even pretend to be so. That they're smart enough to learn from Monty does not mean that they don't appreciate Monty's mistakes ... and history has shown that Monty does not appreciate his own mistakes - MARGET-GARDEN being the prime example but Monty's performance at Dieppe was hardly an act of celebration.

That the Canadians appreciate Monty's prep work does NOT mean that they followed Monty's maneuver thinking. Far from it, even Simmond's orders at amphibious landings contadicts Monty's published views.

The other thing you most obviously missed is that regimental histories are written by Captains and Sergeant-Majors.

In other words, what the f_uck do you mean when you don't hold service members' experience against them? Since it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that you have no experience to judge.

What you obviously missed from Monty's suggestion of the Dieppe Operation is his ego - I ain't in charge, therefore, it should be cancelled.

I am not going to waste any further time with you. A book worm has no appreciation of what it means to lug 75lbs a day for 90 days straight, let alone the trust worthiness of a command order.