Who was the best British General of World War II

Who was the best British General of World War II?

  • Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

    Votes: 23 31.5%
  • Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell

    Votes: 4 5.5%
  • William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim

    Votes: 27 37.0%
  • Claude Auchinleck

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 14 19.2%

  • Total voters
    73
Who was the best British General of World War II?

Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery

Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Alexander

Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Wavell

William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Slim%2C_1st_Viscount_Slim

Claude Auchinleck - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Auchinleck

Other - any you think is more deserving than the afore mentioned generals
 
OK, I went for Montgomery for 2 reasons - one being the Napoleonic reason of his being lucky (right place at the right time, both for El Alamein and for smashing Rommel in S Tunisia) and for the fact that though one can say his victories were due to gathering overwhelming odds etc, this is still a skill

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Oh, and for a write-in, how about Wingate, though maybe he wasn't a full general ? And I always had a soft spot for Iron-whatsit, who organised the first home defence lines in S England

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I voted Slim but I have always had a soft spot for O'Connor. Who knows where he might have ended up if he had not been captured by the Italians in 1941.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I voted for "other" - meaning Alanbrooke. IMO he was the person the allies at least could have been without.

He was the primary brain behind the strategy leading to victory without seriously risking victory and he was a main factor behind Churchill's good sides being utilised so much and his bad sides being so much in chains.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Same here.
Sir Alan Brooke was Lord Attlee's best general. Second is Alexander. Don't mean to insult Montgomery here, but he was only good at winning battles, not leading a whole campaign. Anybody look at Operation Goodwood? 7.700 tons of good bombs!
 
I was tempted by 'Slim'.
But to go with 'other' - agree wholeheartedly with Redbeard about Alanbrooke.
Though ferroslo has a good point about O'Connor
 

Markus

Banned
and for the fact that though one can say his victories were due to gathering overwhelming odds etc, this is still a skill

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

A bit OT, but:

-who critizises him for winning due to having overwhelming superiority?
-did anyone ever defeat the Wehrmacht without having overwhelming superiority?
 
I think what GW meant (and feel free to correct me, good sir :p) is that the majority of Monty's battles he tended to meticulously stockpile and ensure that his supplies were all in place and all that, I'm no expert on the man but I've read a few books in my time that do mention he had a tendency to wait until every last drop and bullet was in place before going on the offensive.

also a little OT, but I like the scene in the movie Patton where I think its Omar Bradley and Patton speaking of Monty and Patton says something along the lines of "I know I'm a prima donna , it's a known fact, my problem with Montgomery is the fact that he his is too and he won't admit it!"

I would have to say Alanbrooke too IIRC he put the brake on a lot of "out there" ideas Churchill had
 
I say Slim....

But I may be that I (and the others who do so) are a little influenced by the romance of the forgotten army - bit of the underdog there. I'm certainly influenced by his Bristolian-ship and family connections to the campaign. However, he was certainly a top general, loved by troops, victorious in theatre etc etc.
 
I voted Other for Adolf Hitler. Clearly he was the British secret weapon & best general in WWII - especially from the Battle of Britain onwards.
 
I voted Other - O'Conner's my favourite. Like ferrosol I'd like to see him somewhere else than in a prisoncamp.
The kind of tanker you'd usually see in German uniform...;)
 

Redbeard

Banned
I think what GW meant (and feel free to correct me, good sir :p) is that the majority of Monty's battles he tended to meticulously stockpile and ensure that his supplies were all in place and all that, I'm no expert on the man but I've read a few books in my time that do mention he had a tendency to wait until every last drop and bullet was in place before going on the offensive.

also a little OT, but I like the scene in the movie Patton where I think its Omar Bradley and Patton speaking of Monty and Patton says something along the lines of "I know I'm a prima donna , it's a known fact, my problem with Montgomery is the fact that he his is too and he won't admit it!"

IMHO one of Monty's greatest assets was his careful and meticolous approach. The allies had time working for them and their biggest risk was being caught out on a limp in a dashing move. That would be playing it on German conditions, they were experts in performing and countering such warfare.

In that context Patton was a liability of strategic dimensions, if not kept on a tight leash, and only unleashed on very special occasions.

I can't say whether it is mainly irony or confirmation that the time when Monty tried a dashing move - Marketgarden - it failed. But it at least showed that Monty did have an eye for such opportunities and that he didn't risk more than he could spare. Patton probably wouldn't have done better at Market Garden, but an intelligence section not overlooking a couple of SS Divisions would have made a difference.

I think Monty was very aware of his public appearance - spin if you like it - and from the first day as commander of 8th Army. But he indeed did have a very difficult personality, especially for colleagues and superiors. You find those types at all levels and I must admit I rarely tolerate them - but I'm no Eisenhower either ;)

But now we're into personalities, try and read Rick Atkinson's book on the US Army in North Africa (Army at Dawn), you get the impression that Patton was not only a Primadonna, but an outright nutcase! It certainly confirmed my take on Patton needing a good staff and a tight leash - if not a straightjacket...


Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Slim is it

Slim was also a careful planner who prepared well, but he is more noteable for being a more acomplished general than Monty. Slim fed the longest logistics line of the war, innovated, for a british general, in his use of combined arms, air supply, jungle fighting, operational air manover, etc.

Slim's place in history


Statue of General Slim on Whitehall


Lieutenant General Sir John Kiszely has recommended Slim's memoirs (Defeat into Victory) describing Slim as "perhaps the Greatest Commander of the 20th Century" and commenting on Slim's "self-deprecating style"[39] This judgement is sound, 14th Army was composed of an amalgam of Indian (Hindu, Sikh and Muslim troops), British, African, and other troops; he was on the far end of a long logistical pipeline and generally had the oldest equipment of any Allied army. By all accounts, he was a superb logistician, imaginative in his tactics and operational concepts, and -- unusually -- very popular with his troops.
The spirit of comradeship Slim created within 14th Army lived on after the war in the Burma Star Association, of which Slim was a co-founder and first President.[40]
A statue to Slim is on Whitehall, outside the Ministry of Defence. This was unveiled by Queen Elizabeth II in 1990. The statue was designed by Ivor Roberts-Jones. The statue is one of three of British Second World War Field Marshals (the others being Alanbrooke and Montgomery).
- wiki general_slim

Of the three Field Marshalls, Slim had the hardest job and showed all round ability as a general. Not just a methodical commander, not just a strategist.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Slim is it

I think that Monty made a good recommendation of O'Conner to take over the 8th Army from him, but was over-ruled. Old etonian, Oliver Leese, did okay at the forth (and final) Battle of Monte Cassino (operation Diadem) and at the Gothic Line, but I suspect that O'Conner would have done better.

Slim showed up Leese when he challenged Slim's ability/authority (claiming that Slim was tired). O'Conner may have been good enough to work with Slim and learn from him.
 
William Slim

Part of Slim's continued legacy in contrast to Monty's somewhat tarnished one is that Slim was not in Europe and was not dealing with the American Generals like Bradley.

Where as Montgomery has had every little mistake he ever made since taking command in Africa scrutinised and critised hundreds of times over to such a level that he is considered by many to be one of the worst generals of the entire war despite having one of the best win/loss records of any general and (with the exception of Market Garden) achieving all of his objectives and usually before the time he predicted he would, Slim and his career has been left alone for the most part.

And this is not because he made few mistake or because he admitted those mistakes it is because he never got on the bad side of the Americans.

Omar Bradley for example hated Montgomery and went out of his way after the war to place as much of the blame for anything that went wrong in Europe on Monty's shoulders instead of taking some of the blame himself. It largely through Bradley's influence that Monty is blamed for dawdling in Normandy in the British sector when in fact Montgomery was not in charge of the British sector but, following the deployment of the troops on the beaches, was in command of all Allied Ground Forces throughout the whole of the Invasion of Normandy and so deserves both a share of the blame and praise in both the British and the American sectors.

If any other general of the war from the British, American, German, Russian, Japanese or any other army had their WWII career examined as thoroughly as Monty's has been over the years then none of them would come out of it looking like they were great or even good commanders.

There is no doubting that Slim was a very good general and was definately one of the best of the war but, in all honesty, I wouldn't called him the best of the war but probably the best of the Asian theatre by a large margin. One main reason for this is because, while Japan was a major threat, the European theatre was the main theatre of operations and Slim, to my knowledge, was never tested there.

Slim was sucessful in parts of Africa (though never against the Germans), the Middle-East (Against Vichy-France) and India and Burma (against the Japanese). He was never tested against the Army considered by many to be the best of the era, the Germans, and never commanded in the main theatre.

He is the WWII equivilant of Isaac Brock, a man considered a great commander but never got the chance to prove it in the main theatre and was always in the secondary theatres, however important that theatre may have been in hindsight.
 
Bernard Law Montgomery

On its own Field Marshal Montgomery's military record and record of ability in Generalship is exceptional. On it own Monty's legacy as a military commander is superior to the vast majority of British, American, German, Russian, Japanese and all other nationalities Generals of WWII.

But thats the problem; Monty's legacy isn't left alone.

Montgomery himself is partly to blame. During WWII he was known to tell his superiors one thing while telling his suboordinates another (such as playing up the idea of breaking out of Normandy early to his superiors while playing down the possiblilty to his suboordinates). He is also well documented in his attemts to claim that, even in failure, his plans had been 90% sucessfull and that, in victory, everything had gone to exactly according to plan.

These errors in judgement are often used against Monty in discussions about his military ability as fact that he was substandard, often taking what he said to superiors as fact while ignore what he said to suboordinates (a somewhat onesided view).

Mostly however Monty's tarsnihed reputation comes from Omar Bradley and his fellow Monty-bashers.

Because Montgomery made so many enemies amungst the Americans during his time in the European Theatre of Operations those enemies wasted very little time in attack his career and pointing out every little fault even if it was the smallest thing imaginable.

One thing that I can highlight for this is in regards to the period of time following El Alamein. Montgomery is accused of letting Rommel escape following initial victory and being slow in persuit where as the fact of the matter is that Monty very nearly caught Rommel but was prevented from doing so by bad weather and his advance across the desert was one of the largest and quickest advances in military history, 780 miles in 20 day, a rate of advance faster than that of Patton much praised advance through Europe.

Another thing I can highlight is this idea that Montgomery outnumbered his enemy at El Alamein, Rommel, by a ratio of 5:1 when in fact Monty outnumber Rommel 2:1 but was attempted to attack an enemy who was in a strong defensive position with an advantage of Monty enemy not being able to outflank him.

There is an idea that came from the mind of Omar Bradley and was reinforced by the movie "Patton" (of which Bradley was military consultant) that Montgomery and Patton were rivals, hated each other and raced each other all over Europe while he (Bradley) looked out for his men and did nothing in the persuit of personal glory.

This idea is quite wrong.

First, Monty and Patton may very well have hated each other but they weren't rivals and they didn't race each other. They respected each others military ability enough to co-exist and work well together but their individual egos were too large to allow them to actually get on.

Further more history actually tell us that Omar Bradley was the most likely out of Monty, Patton or himself to throw men into a pointless battle simply to try and further his own legacy.

One notably part of Bradley version of events that made it into the film "Patton" and subsequently the general ideas of the situation in WWII was during the Allied invasion of Sicily. Bradley said that Patton and Montgomery were racing each other to be the first to capture Messina where as the reality is that Montgomery got bogged down and he suggested to Alexander that Patton's Seventh US Army take Messina as they were in a better position to do so than Monty was.

Montgomery's only real failure as a General in command of an Army in WWII was Market Garden. In that operation he failed to take a strong enough interest in how the generals in the field would control their forces in accordance to his plans. Market Garden was not actually a failure in the strategic of logistical planning but in the execution, something Monty should have taken more interest in but didn't.

As a trainer of men and suboordinates Montgomery was exceptional, as seen from his almost singlehanded retraining of the British Army in Britain and in Africa as well as his influential position in preparing the Canadian forces (with Harry Crerar) for the invasion of Europe. As a strategist, tactian and logistician he was one of the best of his era, as you can tell from the fact that his only major failure was Market Garden. And as a builder of morale there were few better.

The major criticism leveled at Montgomery is that he was a general of material who only ever won through superiority of manpower and material conveniantly ignoring the fact that the American and Russian generals also only ever won with those advantages when talking about them them. This criticism ignores Monty's sucessful improvisations in North Africa, Normandy and the Ardennes, during which he did not have the man power or equipment to achieve those scale victories.

People over the years have made the mistake of believing that because Montgomery was a very difficult man personally he must a poor general but how difficult a man is to get along with has little bearing on how good he is as a general.

If Montgomery's career had been left alone to talk for itself he would be remembered as a general who could easilly equal the ability of Zhukov, meaning a general superior to most and inferior to few but because of the unfair and unjustified assault that Monty and his legacy have suffered in the post-war years Monty is not even thought to be the same calibur of general as Omar Bradley.
 
Top