why? If total war means justifying the killing of innocents"for a good cause",does it matter how?

You surely have a different approach (and probably understanding) to military history. What makes you think of Montgomery as a great general exactly? And what are the valid arguments for area bombing?
It is not still quite clear who are the members of this Trust, and I doubt he was too popular with the majority of the men he commanded..

You surely must understand the difference between attacking another soverign nation and the systematic extermination of anyone considered undesirable. Definite troll comment.

To use your own usual arguments, nothing you have said is evidence to support your opinions, just generalised comments. There is a theme of inviting arguments in order for them to be countered, but without any rational argument made to support your own views.

Back up your own arguments first and I'll respond, or let the argument die and the thread return to appreciation of a great programme. Your choice.

G'night.

well of course I do, your judgement is in hindsight though. If they won the war, who would be the hero and who would be the war criminal?

A controversial character like Harris, who caused the unnecessary death of thousands of civilians and RAF aircrew, all of this for a strategy that didn't actually win the war (it was actually argued in the Parliament that the disruption and damage caused by such bombings would have been an enormous problem to deal with once the war was over), is nothing to be celebrated with a statue, it's really in bad taste IMHO. Harris himself wouldn't probably have been too chuffed about it, there's a reason why he moved to South Africa until Churchill gave him the Baronet title, he knew that what he had done wasn't the best of strategies.. Now I'm not judging the man because I'm sure that being in such a position on such hard times must be the toughest role for a man, but in the meantime I think there's not a lot of room to celebrate his actions either.

well, you asked for it. As we all know, Monty won El-Alamein because of the favourable odds he had (logistics, troops, exhausted enemy), unfortunately, unlike his predecessors, Monty chose not to follow up on his victory by pushing the Germans out of Africa immediately, waiting until May of 1943 to finally accomplish what should have been done months earlier.

But Egypt wasn’t Monty’s real problem. That came later, first with the over-planned and under-executed landings in Sicily (Patton’s forces beat Monty’s British Army to Messina even though they had twice as far to go), followed by his dismal attempt to capture Caen, France on D-Day(The city was not taken until July 18, 1944, six weeks after the initial landing).

Then there was Operation Markey Garden in September, 1944, the attempt to take three key bridges in Holland that would make a breakout into the Ruhr Valley possible. Great idea; just poorly implemented, the result being the surrender of 6,000 British paratroopers at Arnhem and a temporary stalemate that was to last until that next spring.

Is that "factual" enough for you?

You underestimate the potential even a tired enemy has...remember the Battle of Britain.

I thought bad weather started bogging everything down...

Not strictly Monty's fault that German panzer units werent spotted nearby, it is perfectly forgiveable to have unanticipated results due to intel failiures, and that is the real reason the operation failed, bad implementation happened all the time throughout the war.

You clearly have a particular axe to grind against certain British leaders which seems to bias your contributions somewhat.

I have no particular love for that pompous orifice Monty myself but not everything he achieved can be discredited.

Are you really saying heroes and villains are defined purely by the outcome of a given conflict, not by the conduct during the conflict? Really? If Nazi Germany had won the war would they have really been heroes? I think if I was being kind I would say your statement is too broad and oversimplified.

Area bombing sure was/is controversial. But it's so easy for us to have negative views of the action taken now from the comfort of our 70 year post war position. I am no military strategist, but, if those in command at the time truly believed that area bombing was the only way to win the war, then who are we (I'm talking as an Englishman) to argue? If all the options were properly considered and it was felt that allied defeat and the invasion/occupation of western Europe, including the UK, was inevitable/very likely without area bombing, then I don't have a problem with the decisions taken. War is a horrible thing - there is no way around it. We just need to understand that.

PPP out

Bongo, I'm afraid you underestimate that soldiers that drink the water from their vehicles' radiators or that let themselves die in the desert are signs of an exhaustion beyond any offensive potential. It was a hard battle, but despite its mobility it became another war of friction, where who has the support and logistics on their back is more likely to win.

[quote]
I thought bad weather started bogging everything down...
[quote]
bad weather in Africa for 6 months.. really? Try and tell that to the guys in the Ardennes.. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but NO. First of all, he had the cheek to declare that Market-Garden was "90% successful" (the "10% failure" probably being the fact that they lost the chance to end the war by Xmas, 17k casualties among Allied troops and last but not leasts the thousands of civilians that died in Holland because of the ensuing famine the following winter..), second thing is that the competition with Patton had the best of him: Monty had this thing that when he needed to be cautious he was reckless, and when he could go he was too prudent.
No, I am just talking about controversial generals, the fact that they're both British is coincidental. I can mention you a lot of non British incompetent or controversial generals if you want me to: Adolf Hitler anyone? :rolleyes:
My opinion (which is shared by many, both now and back in the days) is that Montgomery was overrated, that's it. I'm not saying he didn't do what he had to do, but when left to organise important things his stubbornness got in the way and caused enormous damage.

erm.. is this a serious question? Do you think the Nazis went around thinking they were the bad guys? They were indoctrinated into a creed that was the only way for them, made of racial pride and will of revenge. Many dissented on Hitler's politics of course, but they either kept it for themselves or got in serious trouble. I'm not saying I don't think they were, but if you were a Nazi you would have ended up agreeing with the mass. The majority believed they were in the right, like any side to a war is, the "evil villains" are just James Bond movie stuff..

The "heroes of the Soviet Union" raping and pillaging on their way to Berlin, area bombing in Europe (done by both sides), atomic bombs, the war crimes committed by Tito in Jugoslavia.. the killing and raping done by Algerian troops whilst advancing in Italy..History is written by the winners, who wins is the good guy.

Think about it, Russia was our ally until 1945, then they went from being the good guys to our enemies, and it's not like their politics changed much until 1989..

The decision of area bombing was a much controversial one and that didn't get approved on the first spot anyway, because many in the war cabinet argued that it would have been the same as going down to the same level of the Nazis. When it was eventually approved the USAAF firmly detached itself from such policy, saying they would have carried out their daylight operations of pinpoint bombing to damage factories and other strategic objectives (applying a peculiar double standard in 1945 with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. )

The deliberate bombing of civilian targets was in line with what the Germans did during the Blitz, a form of retaliation disguised as an offensive strategy to win the war, in a time where everybody was tired of the war and propaganda struggled to give positive news that would show there was a definite and effective way to end the war quickly.

Definitely the worst chapter of the RAF history, and again it can't be blamed on the men that executed their orders, but only on their commander and his insistent (as much as wrong) idea that area bombing would have won the war, instead of just being a mass murder.

So how exactly is the fact that the axis were denied supplies and reinforcements and overwhelmed by a superior force testament to Montgomery's total incompetence?

I never said 6 months.....where did I say 6 months? just like in many other conflicts nature sometimes nature throws in a curveball that changes proceedings to a degree, I was just under the impression a window of bad weather bought Rommel some time and in the end there was no need to make a decisive push....the rest of the war was practically on the back foot for the Axis by then.

War is hell ain't it........
don't worry Stern...even I am a bit upset that we celebrate an oxygen thief like Monty, I would much prefer we had a more charismatic person in his place of history.

Hitler wasn't a general....just a corporal with delusions of grandeur, shame you make little effort to mention some of these 'other' generals, your concentration on the British ones is telling.

Many oppinions are always shared by many others....doesn't make them right or wrong, Montgomery being overrated is one I can share with you but not completely incompetent.

I don't think he was a total incompetent, he knew his stuff (which somehow makes him even worse), but El-Alamein was a bit unbalanced: it's like saying you're gonna play the world cup final against a formidable team who has no football boots and is one legged..

Well that's how long they sat on their ar$e for. He lived on the glory of El-Alamein and didn't complete his job in North Africa.

I understand your sentiment.

well he was a general indeed unfortunately, and I can mention to you other bad generals: Rommel, Alexander, Gamelin, Graziani, Percival, Fredendall.. we also have the ones who won, but at insane costs in terms of lives (i.e. Stalin, Zhukov..).. if you want details on them let me know :)

as I said before, he wan't a complete incompetent, he was a stubborn man with an awful sense of timing and an ego the size of the British empire..

No not really...it's just like a regular football match and one side lost, you seem to be emphasising the entire North Africa campaingn on the second half, the first half was a mirror of your description with the allies being completely outclassed, just because Rommel wasn't completely taken out doesn't mean enough wasn't done.

I'm not sure your prejudice against amputees is very nice, Bader had no legs (lost before the war) and he became an Ace.

Cool then.....same hymn sheet is being sung from.