Why were patton and montgomery rivals

Patton the greatest offensive genius in the history of warfare, according to certain of his peers. Subtitled Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, and the Partnership that Drove the Allied Conquest in Europe, the book provides fresh perspectives on how the men cooperated between and among themselves. Surprisingly good for most of the symphony, that is. Although Jordan portrays Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley as the principal players on the Western Front, other intriguing characters spur the action as well.

British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, for one, routinely jeopardized Allied unity, causing Eisenhower many sleepless nights. The Americans regarded Monty as vainglorious and pompous, constantly conniving to use American troops to shore up weaknesses in his own positions.

At the same time, however, they acknowledged his devotion to the Allied cause and respected his war record. Whenever Patton publicly chafed at what he saw as British timidity — and that was often — Ike had to step in to publicly mend fences. Next: General Patton's rash behavior. As for Bradley, he was the quintessential field commander — organized, thoroughgoing and loyal to Ike even when his boss overruled him.

Somehow Bradley always found a way to get a tough job done. Patton likewise had little patience for politics — or politicians, for that matter. Perhaps Patton should have been more appreciative of those diplomatic skills, for time and again Ike had to save Patton from the political consequences of his rash behavior — most famously the incidents yes, there was more than one in which Patton slapped an artilleryman, which Jordan covers in riveting detail.

Parallels also ring in passages detailing the criticism leveled at Patton for his alleged lax enforcement of the denazification of postwar Germany. The idea was to purge all Nazi supporters and influence from German society for all time. A similar quandary gripped post-Saddam Iraq, where supporters of the U.

II Corps. Patton quickly injected discipline and his fighting spirit into the corps and led it to victories at Gafsa and El Guettar.

For their part, Patton and many of his colleagues resented British impertinence, especially on the part of Montgomery. Arrogant, self-centered, and pushy, the year-old general in the natty black beret irked his colleagues with outlandish statements and demands. In many ways he was not unlike Patton. George was a magnificent soldier. But Patton felt that American interests and honor too often took a back seat to British demands. Patton welcomed the chance to assert U.

But Montgomery favored a less dispersed landing to the south and in the end, his plan won out. Patton still expected Seventh Army to make its mark.

From the outset Eighth Army strategy left little room for Patton to operate, and Montgomery essentially imposed his will on Alexander. If they draw enemy attacks on them my swing north will cut off enemy completely. This was not the time to raise a fuss. For the moment he saved his invective for his diary.

However, he is such a straw man that his future is secure. The British will never let him go. Yet Patton did not simply give up Highway with a smile. He slyly secured authorization to expand the American perimeter west. Patton had his eyes set on Palermo, and, ultimately, Messina. Truscott, who headed up the 3rd Infantry Division, discussed a westward reconnaissance in force toward Agrigento and Porto Empedocle. On July 16 Alexander issued another directive that positively infuriated Patton.

Patton blamed Montgomery. Patton had had enough. Patton told the army group commander in no uncertain terms that he wanted his army unleashed. Now i know why i got in trouble in history class because I was always arguing with my teacher. Being raised by parents born in Europe. I always try and look at opinions as a pendulum most are influenced by where they were educated swinging way towards one side and others way towards the other that being said.

Nigel from everything I have read swings way far towards the British side of history defending monty to the point your opinion on this is far to bias to have any creditable value, no disrespect intended the facts are the facts in your opinion.

I would love to see you change that and use that same passion and argue the same about Patton, since i see that is what you love to do reading the bottom of the blog. Then i think everyone who reads this can understand why you have the stance you feel so passionate about.

I will put together an argument later on after further research about this topic which i find is very complex as far as I'm concerned. Monty vs. Patton the men the myth And all the other major players in WWII I'm pretty sure we can have hundreds of different opinions about who should of ,could of or did during this horrible world conflict thanks for letting me contribute i will come up with a argument later but i love this banter.

Dear John Feb 13, hey, don't under-rate the value of good propaganda. Patton had as desperate a need to rebuild US morale after taking over at Kesserine as Montgomery did 8th Army after taking that over.

Their response was perfect. The issue was when they started believing their own propaganda Dear unknown Feb 18, Correct. He was pretty good at pursuit, possibly as good as Rommel. Interesting question as to whether working under Monty in North Africa and Sicily might have improved him? Probably they were too different for that to work.

Alex was of little value obviously Perhaps Brooke or Wavell Dear Jim April 10, you are correct about swings in fashion. Early 20C British history is as embarrassingly pompous as late 20C American history. And I get a distinct feeling early 21C Americna history is going to be as dismissive of the good things America has contributed to the world in that time judging by the current US isolationist moves in the Presidential race as late 20C British stuff was.

Interestingly some of the counter-revisionism coming out against the British crap of the last 50 years is looking as simplistic as some of the American crap of the last 50 years was. I can see that in 20 years time I will be reversed, and busy trying to laud American reality over what is being claimed by American revisionists, and trying to downplay British reality over what is being claimed by British counter-revisionists. Just pissed off about bad history. And yes, that does mean that I go over the top with my sarcasm, in both directions, so if you want to rad it that way I think you could definitely say I sway too far to make my points Ugh, I guess the pendulum does swing both ways after all.

Sorry I'm late to the party. Monty gets way too much credit for 2nd El Alamein. It was a battle he could not possibly have lost without being utterly incompetent, and even then possibly not. Once Auchinlek stopped Rommel in the first battle, even Fredendall could have blocked the way in the second. I think your what if? As a quick side note being an Aussie I often wonder how effective would a formation such as the 9th division have been in Normandy?

The 9th were crucial to the success of second Alamein under Monty, although the 50th Highlanders, alongside the Aussies at El Alamein, are said to have had a poor showing in Normandy. I'm sure the bocage country would have been quite alien to most Australians, especially after the desert. Again, apologies for the digression, and thanks for such a great blog!. What a load of bullshit. Montgomery was a useless general. Vainglorious, boastful without valid reason and self-serving.

Nothing Montgomery did or did not do, particularly his failure to Caen for six weeks having promised to take it on the first day of D-Day caused Tedder to revise his low opinion of Montgomery.

Monty actually changed the course of the war and took care of his men first. Eisenhower Showed great diplomacy at all times. Patton took great risk at achieving his goal but never at risk to him only his men.

As for Market Garden even Eisenhower thought it was worth a try. Monty was a legend and Patton a bully and a fool. This page has been a great read. No doubt some serious students of the war, and an excellent debate. Wish I could be in a room with all of you guys to debate it further. I'll give my opinions too, although I tend to stick to the process and results as opposed to personality conflicts: 1.

Monty wasn't perfect, but history paints him as a great General and I'm American. With the sting of the horror of and the Somme fresh in the minds of the British people, Monty was the right man at the right time. No bloodletting for inches of ground, he was all about flank and maneuver. Yes, he didn't always play nice, but many successful people don't. I give him a pass at Market Garden because sometimes you have to plan well and be lucky to win campaigns: he wasn't lucky at Arnhem.

If it worked, the war is most likely over months sooner. Bottom line: Monty seized his opportunity, and the British needed a leader like him. Patton: the tip of the spear for the American Command. There is a reason he was put in place to clean up after the disaster at Kasserine. But deep flaws too. He likely smashes through Metz before the Germans can set up.

But the broad front approach was filled with political gears, and Patton did not play that game well. I think the Germans speak for how effective he was as a commander: the German units that needed to refit after Patton mauled them in the Falaise gap were moved away from his sector and up to Holland Monty's sector. And the Ardennes were picked by Hitler for a December counteroffensive in part to steer clear of hitting Patton head on.

Yes, a soft spot in the Allied lines was the target, soft in part because Third Army was a hundred miles to the south. Again his personality rubbed others wrong, including his superiors. His profane personal style included openly taking shots at his boss. No matter how talented you are, whether in the US Army or business in the personal sector, you have to play the game.

Final thought: I knew a vet since deceased RIP and much respect, my friend. Patton for one reason: they were convinced he would end the war faster and get them home. To his dying day he loved Patton, and wore his Third Army insignia with pride.

Eisenhower: the right man diplomatically for handling the largest coalition ever assembled at the time, which is a great skill that helps you win, but not a great tactical mind. The fuel shortage fiascos that slowed the Allies down in the summer of , and the Ardennes surprise in December of that year don't reflect well on his leadership or Bradley's, who is, in my opinion, the most overrated US Commander.

Eisenhower could straddle the worlds of intercontinental diplomacy and DC politics, as well as juggle the challenges of his Army in the field. That's worth a lot: perhaps his greatest skill was managing two dynamic talents and egos like Monty and Patton to achieve final victory over a dangerous enemy. Thanks for the great read, enjoyed all the arguments! While I read much that is interesting here, the nearly complete lack of citations make all of this opinion.

That no primary and if my scan of this page is correct, only one secondary source is mentioned, and none cited, is deficiency that undermines the arguments. I fear that Monty's biggest problem was his monumental ego and complete lack of empathy. The jokes like the betting that he found funny and everyone else thought ridiculous, the inability to suffer fools even for a moment, and generally just being a rather unpleasant little shit, as he himself acknowledged.

Even amongst fairly hard bitten and professional men like generals these lacks were significant. The biggest issue I have with Monty is that he failed to realize by this time that for political reasons an American had to be in top command. Britain was the junior partner. A British General was never going to be the General-in-Chief. General Marshall was never going to ok giving Monty command of all US troops and all the fuel and supplies. If Monty was that great a General then he should realized this fact and stopped talking about something that was politically impossible.

Davies maybe you can answer this question. Monty was never going to get what he wanted, so why didn't Brooke or Churchill tell him the political facts of life?

This was a huge error and many soldiers and civilians died on both sides because the British were too arrogant to admit they were now the junior partner. Britain was not the junior partner. Churchill screwed that up. But Churchill allowed them to have more in the European Theatre of Operations, in their own backyard.

Patton "failed" in the Lorraine. On 5 November he sated to Bradley he will be a the Westwall in three day. To get into Germany he had to move north. By then the Germans had collapsed.

Patton was nobody. A US media creation. To compare a nobody general like Patton to Montgoemery is ludicrous. Only Americans do that. To compare a nobody three US general like Patton to Montgomery is ludicrous. A Hollywood created myth. Monday, October 31, Uselessly comparing Patton and Montgomery. One of the things I most dislike about bad comparisons from World War Two, is romantic comparisons that take the public imagination, but serve no useful relation to reality.

The Western Allies tendency to idealise Rommel as the best German general for the simple reason that he was the sexiest or most dramatic general THEY fought is such a useless statement. In practice they were beaten by von Runstedt and Guderian and many others in , and had a hard time matching the far less resourced von Kluge and Model in Still it hangs around more for its popular romance than any useful purpose.

Such is the idea that Patton and Montgomery were the great rivals of the war. The great rivalries amongst the Allies that made a real imact were Marshall and Brooke over war policy, Nimitz and MacArthur over resources, Eisenhower and Montgomery over strategy; and then between Percival and MacArthur for incompetence, Patton and O'Connor for aggressiveness, MacArthur and Clarke for vainglory, and possibly Clarke and Wavell for the stupidity of letting defeated enemies escape , were the issues that defined the war for the Western allies.

The idea that a competition between Patton and Montgomery was more important is cute, but niave. I am not even sure where the idea comes from. Much is made of the bet between Patton and Montgomery over reaching Palermo in Sicily first, but in practical terms that was the only time in the war that Patton ever appeared on Montgomery's radar. For the rest of the war Monty was so much higher up the food chain than Patton that he was unaware, or disinterested in Patton's opinions.

Montgomery was, by , an experienced general who very successfully fought extensively in both combat and staff roles for 4 years throughout World War One. Patton got a combat command for a few weeks when the Germans were already collapsing. Montgomery led a division very successfully through the Battle of France, and a corps through the crucial Battle of Britain training and rebuilding years.

He led an army in combat for two years, through many successful battles both on defense and in attack. By Patton had led a corps for a few months, and an army for a few weeks.

For the very brief period of the Sicily compaign they were theoretically equals in command, but probably only in Patton's mind. Montgomery saw Patton as an enthusiastic if amateurish old man. Montgomery saw his HQ 'betting book' as a bit of fun and was delighted when bet a B17 by someone who should have known better.

When he and Patton met and co-ordinated the Sicilian campaign Alexander seemed not interested in co-ordinating, Monty saw Palermo as a similar bit of fun to pursue, no bigger or smaller than the hundreds of other bets in the book.

Patton saw it, as he saw anything relating to his persona, as the most vitally important challenge of his whole life Montgomery lost a bet and moved on to the next challenge. Patton won but didn't. Or at least that is what bad writers have tried to suggest. I think he moved straight on to the next challenge anyway. That was the last time Monty and Patton were in direct competition, no matter what revisionists or romantics would say.

The next time Patton was allowed in the field he was one of half a dozen army commanders in Monty's Normandy army group, and, familiarly, he did not arrive until the Germans in Normandy were already collapsing. Very soon afterwards Eisenhower split off Bradley's army group, and Monty had no control, nor much interest, in what Patton was up to thereafter.

The romantics like to suggest that therafter Monty railed against Patton's supplies, and that Patton railed against Montgomery's caution. The truth is less foolish for both of them. In fact Montgomery railed against Eisenhower's broad front strategy regardless of which of the other sub-commanders was benifitting to the point of Montgomery making an offer to serve under Bradley as long as someone got single control to pursue a single strategy.

He railed against the diversion of resources anywhere not at the main point where a thrust might have achieved early victory. Lee became the first Asian-American woman to win Olympic gold in the women's gymnastics all-around at the Tokyo Games. Being caught speeding would usually involve a flash of a camera and a letter demanding a fine. Chancellor Rishi Sunak insists the UK economy is on the "right path" after latest GDP figures reveal a slowing of growth between July and September due to supply chain problems.

The footage, released on November 9, shows three Youth Services Officers struggling to walk in a straight line. Credit: Rocklin Police Department via Storyful. Members of the public have resorted to using makeshift items to treat casualties after terror attacks including the Manchester bombing and London Bridge stabbings.

A drone was reportedly flown over Glasgow Airport on Thursday morning, causing a short delay to flights. The key to improving your golf handicap may be to implement a simple, yet drastic, change: play with the other hand.

Read full article. More content below. Erwin Rommel. Julian Gavaghan. In this article:. The American, George Patton, was famed for his larger-than-life persona Getty.