Part 1 | Part 2 Internationally acclaimed historian Antony Beevor talks at the Melbourne Writers Festival about his vivid and engaging opus, D-Day: The Battle For Normandy, the...
I think it would be illuminating if this superb historian wrote about the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially the hapless performance of the politicians involved.
What he is saying is fact.Hastings,Hart,Keegan before Beevor brought this up .Monty's flip-flopping was chronicled along time ago by actual participants.He'd bragg,fail then make excuses or say he'd plan things that way .
John Burns If you like a story then he is fine. If you want historical accuracy, go elsewhere. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You poor trampled cabbage leaf,he graduated from St.Mary's and Sandhurst,lectured at Cambridge and served in the British Army.Probably why he has been acknowledged by Historical Societies,Museums,Military Institutes and Universities.He's been knighted and you roll up your car windows to smell your own farts.Puddles you better get back to mopping out the adult theater
"The Normandy landings were the first successful opposed landings across the English Channel in over eight centuries. They were costly in terms of men, but the defeat inflicted on the Germans was one of the largest of the war. Strategically, the campaign led to the loss of the German position in most of France and the secure establishment of a new major front. In larger context the Normandy landings helped the Soviets on the Eastern Front, who were facing the bulk of the German forces and, to a certain extent, contributed to the shortening of the conflict there." From Wikipedia.
@Old Prof ... sorry sunshine but By the time D-Day came ... the Germany had already lost to Soviets. Remember Battle of Stalingrad (Aug '42 - Feb '43) when whole Army 100 000 men was captured ? Remember Battle of Kursk (July '43), the Biggest Tank battle ever ? and Battle of Bagration in June '44 when more Soviets inflicted more than 510 000 German casualties ... ? Western Allies came to the party too late !
@@Hero.Lone-Wolf the allies came at the right time as the russians were running low on manpower by 1944 thats why the west invaded italy and sicily to draw off some of the german strength stali was begging them long before then i dont recall the russian population before ww2 but i do know that russias population is only 165 million people as of 200 census for the u.s. to have sent troops before that would have been a waste of their lives the u.s. went from a couple hundred thousand troops to a few million by the time the war ended
The invasion itself resulted in remarkably low casualties, save Omaha. Taken together the collective beach invasions resulted in less than 4K killed. Far less than factored under the 3-1 invasion ratio formula. The next two months were simply a slugfest between two powers, the Germans with superior ground tactics, weapons and defensive advantages vs our material, artillery, and air superiority. Monty was as sluggish and cautious as Bradley- neither drawing much praise from captured German Officers. “Wasted opportunities, no ingenuity or exploitation”. Those were accurate but unfair assessments. The US was so late to battle and the Brits couldn’t stomach irreplaceable causalities. We therefore destroyed with better artillery doctrine and close cover air
@@golfer5636 _“The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them into their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen we were to make our break on the long roundabout road to a Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for which while we trampled around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans.Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded.”_ - Omar Bradley. - Hamilton, Nigel. Monty, Master of the Battlefield 1942-1944. Normandy came in ahead of schedule with fewer losses than predicted. The highest concentration of German armour was in the Caen sector, more than at Kursk. The British plan was for them to sit still, draw in German armour the destroyed it - *90%* of German armour in the west was destroyed by the British. By drawing in the Germans onto the *static* left flank (British), this allowed the right flank (Americans) to break out.
@@Hero.Lone-Wolf Kursk wasn't the biggest tank battle ever. The allies took far more prisoners in Tunisia that were captured in Stalingrad 90,000 not 100,000. The Russians might have won but would not have reached Berlin in '45 without Leadlease.
5:12 Keith Douglas; 9:19 German general en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel; Cherbourg general; 14:00 approx Fr casualties; 15:55 Montgomery lack of candor with American commanders
he doesnt explain five things-why the american pre landing bombardment -both sea and air was so ineffective at omaha and why the bombardment pre operation goodwood was not deep enough-7km not 14km, why the allies were so unprepared to fight effectively in the bocage, why development of allied armour was so far behind german armour after seeing tigers and panthers in italy and tunisia in 1943 and why infantry particularly english were still doing frontal assaults in daylight without armoured protection-it took the canadians to show the use of kangaroos(m7 priests without their 105mm howitzers) as armoured transports at night to break the german lines.there were too many english infantry casualties during the early assaults that were repelled with just a few 88mm guns, the first appearance of 12ss hitlerjugend was a revelation because of its motivation and size. the allied use of stop gap tank destroyers was only a partial solution to their tank inadequacy
Interesting comments. Your correct analysis is well documented. Warfare is confusion and error. The perfect plan is mostly elusive. Hindsight is a commentators most favourable supporter.
The Germans at Operation Goodwood in Normandy had five lines of defence with dug in 88mm's and heavy Tiger and fast Panther tanks for mobility. Operation Goodwood was mostly _'not'_ bocage but open ground more suitable for tank battles, where the German long range 88mm's would be at an advantage. Monty's plan was *not* for British forces to take territory. He specifically wanted to draw in German armour onto British forces to grind them up *keeping them away from the US forces for them to break out (Operation Cobra).* That was even stated at St.Paul's school in Fulham prior to the landings. To do that he was confident British armour could match German armour - US armour would struggle or most likely be overwhelmed. *A 12 mile sector around Caen saw more concentrated German armour in all of WW2.* Operation Goodwood was not British forces taking territory, as the plan was for the US forces to do that, Monty specifically states this here in this link in an interview with Edward R Murrow. Transcript.... _"The acquisition of territory on the eastern flank of the beachhead in the Caen sector was not really important. What was important there was to draw the maximum number of German divisions, and especially the armour, into that flank. The acquisition of territory was important on the western flank [the US sector]." ...."an accusation drawn at me, that I ought to have taken Caen in the programme on D-Day! And we didn't. I didn't mind about that because....The air force would get very het up because I didn't go further down towards Falaise and get the ground suitable for airfields. I didn't bother about that, it would have meant enormous casualties in doing it and it wasn't necessary."_ _"I could reply to that criticism that on the American front the line from which the breakout was finally launched was a line the St.Lo-Periers road, should have been captured in the initial plan by the American 1st Army on D-Day plus 5, that was the 11th June. But they didn't actually capture it until the 18th July. But I have never returned the charge with that accusation. ...until now"_ _"I have never understood why Ike said in his dispatches that, when the British failed to break out towards Paris on the eastern flank. The Americans were able [to break out], because of our flexibility, to take it on, on our western flank. I have always thought that was an unfair criticism of Dempsey and the 2nd British Army."_ - Field Marshall Montgomery (1959) th-cam.com/video/A_TB9wHRRSw/w-d-xo.html The RAF chief Tedder, wanted Monty fired wanting open territory to the south towards Falaise to setup his airfields saying Monty was not pursing territory aggressively enough. Monty would have none of it. Operation Goodwood was engaging the massed armoured German defences drawing them in to British lines, grinding them up moving slowly. Here is a 1970s objective British Army Sandhurst internal video analysing Operation Goodwood, with even German commanders who were there taking part. At the beginning it specifically states Monty told Generals O'Connor and Dempsey not to run south to Falaise, not to take territory. Look at 6 mins: th-cam.com/video/udW1UvSHXfY/w-d-xo.html Monty was not too concerned with Caen as it would consume too many resources to take. Cities always do. He was more concerned with grinding up German armour in the field. Although by the time of Operation Goodwood only the southern suburbs were in German hands. Monty was in charge of all of Operation Overlord. He wanted the German armour away from US forces, to allow them to break out. It worked. That is what he wanted and planned. Monty never saw Caen as important but never criticised US forces..... until 1959 when they were snidely at him about Caen to hide their inadequacies. He criticised them for taking St.Lo a month late - with little German armour around for a month. The Germans did send some armour to St.Lo with the US forces making it worse for themselves to capture the place. Even US General Bradley agreed with Monty. Bradley wrote that: _"The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus, while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we (the Americans)were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride, this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for while we tramped around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded"._
Rambo, the Brits destroyed over 90% of German armour in Normandy. Most around Caen. Monty would not put the Yanks against German massed armour as they would have been annihilated. Monty saved a lot of Yankee lives. He also had to take command of *two* US armies in the Bulge as they lost it. Parts of the USAAF had to be put under RAF control as well. Monty saved the U.S. asses. Sad but true.
You trampled cabbage leaf,Monty did not accomplish anything but slow the allies down at Caen & and allow the Gerries to escape from the falaise pocket.Most noted military experts agree Monty should have been removed.Incompetence and dereliction of duty.He would have been removed by the Gerries or the Rooskies - maybe even shot.Patton would have been in Berlin if it wasn't for Monty's methodical mess ups.The Brits really wanted to hang him from a sour apple tree *th-cam.com/video/9TCUCxYYHpA/w-d-xo.html*
Waterhead we know you're crippled between the ears but evidently your ears don't work either.They clearly mention Monty as he commanding that sector.Have your handler listen for you.Montgomery should have been sacked.They have a saying for guys like him in Texas - All hat,no cattle
That introduction from the politician was a bit long winded…. Not to take anything at all away from Mr. Beevor’s magnificent genius, only his valuable speaking time for us….
Not a single Hollywood reporter at Allied HQ HQ blaming Montgomery *Alan Brooke's own words* *"Triumph in the West, by Arthur Bryant, From the diary of Field Marshal Lord Alan Brooke, entry for 5 October 1944:Page 219" During the whole discussion one fact stood out clearly, that access to Antwerp must be captured with the least possible delay. I feel that Monty's strategy for once is at fault, Instead of carrying out the advance on Arnhem he ought to have made certain of Antwerp in the first place. Ramsay brought this out well in the discussion and criticized Monty freely....."* Or Bernard himself after the War admitting it *The Guns at Last Light, by Rick Atkinson, page 303* *Even Field Marshall Brooke* had doubts about Montgomery's priorities *"Antwerp must be captured with the Least possible delay" he wrote in his diary Admiral Ramsey wrote and warned that clearing the Scheldt of mines would take weeks, even after the German defenders were flicked away from the banks of the waterway" Monty made the startling announcement that he would take the Ruhr with out Antwerp this afforded me the cue I needed to lambaste him.......I let fly with all my guns at the faulty strategy we had allowed Montgomery. He would acknowledge as much after the war, conceding "a bad mistake on my part"* *From a PHD at King's College who also notes Ramsay/Brooke warned Monty about the Scheldt Estuary* *Eisenhower's Armies ,by Dr Niall Barr ,page 415* After the failure of Market-Garden, Eisenhower held a conference on 5 October 1944 that not only provided a post mortem on the operation but in which he reiterated his strategy for the campaign. Alan Brooke was present as an observer, noted that IKE's strategy continued to focus on the clearance of the Scheldt Estuary, followed by an advance on the Rhine, the capture of the Ruhr and a subsequent advance on Berlin. *After a full and frank discussion in which Admiral Ramsey criticized Montgomery freely, Brooke was moved to write, I feel that Monty's strategy for once is at fault,instead of carrying out the advance on Arnhem he ought to have made certain of Antwerp in the 1st place....IKE nobly took all the blame on himself as he had approved Monty's suggestion to operate on Arnhem* *How about Air Marshall Tedder* *With Prejudice, by Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder, Deputy Supreme Commander AEF, Page 599"* *Eisenhower assumed, as he and I had done all along, that whatever happened Montgomery would concentrate on opening up Antwerp. No one could say that we had not emphasized the point sufficiently by conversation and signal* *How about Monty's Chief of Staff* *Max Hastings, Armageddon:The Battle for Germany,1944-45 Freddie de Guingand Monty's Chief of Staff telephoned him saying the operation would be launched too late to exploit German disarray. That XXX Corps push to Arnhem would being made on a narrow front along one road,Monty ignored him* *How about IKE's/Allied HQ Chief of Staff Bedell-Smith* *Max Hastings, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany,1944-45* The release of the files from German Signals by Bletchley Park conclusively showed that the 9th & 10th Panzer Divisions were re-fitting in the Arnhem area. With their Recon Battalions intact. *Yet when Bedel-Smith(SHAEF) brought this to Monty's attention "he ridiculed the idea and waved my objections airly aside"* *How about IKE's Private Papers?* *The Eisenhower Papers, volume IV, by Edward Chandler By early September Montgomery and other Allied leaders thought the Wehrmacht was finished . *It was this understanding that led Monty to insist on the Market-Garden Operation over the more mundane task of opening the port of Antwerp. He ignored Eisenhower's letter of Sept 4 assigning Antwerp as the primary mission for the Northern Group of Armies* *And of course Admiral Ramsay who knew a deep water port was needed* *Ardennes 1944,By Sir Antony Beevor, page 14* Sir Bertram Ramsey ,Allied Naval commander-in-chief had told SHAEF and Monty that the Germans could block the Scheldt Estuary with ease. *The mistake lay with Monty, who was not interested in the estuary and thought the Canadians could clear it later* *Try looking up Churchill's biographer Martin Gilbert who took over 20 yrs to finish the 8 volumes on Winston's life* *Road to Victory, Winston Churchill 1941-45,by Martin Gilbert* A British War cabinet memo suggested that the appointment of Monty was from the point of view of it's reception by public opinion. *Apparently that clinched the War Cabinet's vote for Montgomery; based strictly on military accomplishments, the case for him was very weak* Another Oxford Grad and Sandhurst Professor *The Second World War by John Keegan p. 437* The Plan was the most calamitous flaw in the post Normandy campaign .It was more over barely excusable, since Ultra was supplying Montgomery's HQs from Sept 5 onward with intelligence .As early as Sept 12 Monty's own intelligence reported the Germans intended to hold out along the approaches to Antwerp. Monty - despite every warning and contrary to common military sense - refused to turn his troops back in their tracks to clear the Scheldt Estuary
Beevor has always undermined primary German sources in his studies. That's why he has blundered both Market Garden and Ardennes unlike much better military Swedish historian Christer Bergström and Dutch R.G.Poulussen. I have never appreciated Beevor much. He is flattering too much his American readers which became painfully obvious in his fiasco to not understand how terrible blunder US General Gavin made in Nijmegen (Market Garden).
Keep repeating your bullshit evidently another account name from John Burns.The 82nd had too many objectives.The moron Monty had to open up Antwerp like SHAEF & Senior British Officers demanded.If OMG worked they would be dead in the water because no resupply or reinforcement
Some of Beevor's assertions and conclusions about D-Day are questionable, to say the least. Like some other modern historians he writes to sell books, not relate facts. His writing is littered with supposition and invention.
You sir are an ass clown. He writes detailed well organized books with citations as long as the bible. You write three sentences with not one documented example.
Beevor is wrong about Field Marshal Montgomery once again! Beevor is making the mistake of viewing WW2 battlefields, through the lens of modern times, with all the modern warfare niceties that that involves. This was a different time. It was never Montgomery's intention to take Caen. He said as much in his autobiography. It was understood by the Americans beforehand. The British were going to draw as much of the enemy strength as possible in the Caen area, so that the Americans could break out on the other side. This constant Monty bashing that Beevor feels the need to engage in when he visits America, is very cheap and sad. There were certain people, Tedder for one, who had their own motives for wanting Montgomery out of the way. Tedder was viewed with great suspicion by Churchill for this very reason. Beevor is pumping a long discredited line, which once sounded good, but has been proved as being nothing more than propoganda.
I have the Book😊
I think it would be illuminating if this superb historian wrote about the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially the hapless performance of the politicians involved.
What he is saying is fact.Hastings,Hart,Keegan before Beevor brought this up .Monty's flip-flopping was chronicled along time ago by actual participants.He'd bragg,fail then make excuses or say he'd plan things that way .
Sir Beevor starts at 5:00.
Sir Antony
Thanks for the heads up. I find those long-winded intros to be a waste of time.
Cheers.
I love this guys books,
I must buy one, perhaps his tome THE SECOND WORLD WAR. One can buy it for $15 from Amazon.
buy "The second world war". if you are new to ww2.
I myself bought it for 15$ and it was worth it
3BALL4
If you like a _story_ then he is fine. If you want historical accuracy, go elsewhere.
@@oldprof9330
Don't bother.
John Burns
If you like a story then he is fine. If you want historical accuracy, go elsewhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You poor trampled cabbage leaf,he graduated from St.Mary's and Sandhurst,lectured at Cambridge and served in the British Army.Probably why he has been acknowledged by Historical Societies,Museums,Military Institutes and Universities.He's been knighted and you roll up your car windows to smell your own farts.Puddles you better get back to mopping out the adult theater
"The Normandy landings were the first successful opposed landings across the English Channel in over eight centuries. They were costly in terms of men, but the defeat inflicted on the Germans was one of the largest of the war. Strategically, the campaign led to the loss of the German position in most of France and the secure establishment of a new major front. In larger context the Normandy landings helped the Soviets on the Eastern Front, who were facing the bulk of the German forces and, to a certain extent, contributed to the shortening of the conflict there." From Wikipedia.
@Old Prof ... sorry sunshine but By the time D-Day came ... the Germany had already lost to Soviets. Remember Battle of Stalingrad (Aug '42 - Feb '43) when whole Army 100 000 men was captured ? Remember Battle of Kursk (July '43), the Biggest Tank battle ever ? and Battle of Bagration in June '44 when more Soviets inflicted more than 510 000 German casualties ... ?
Western Allies came to the party too late !
@@Hero.Lone-Wolf the allies came at the right time as the russians were running low on manpower by 1944 thats why the west invaded italy and sicily to draw off some of the german strength stali was begging them long before then i dont recall the russian population before ww2 but i do know that russias population is only 165 million people as of 200 census for the u.s. to have sent troops before that would have been a waste of their lives the u.s. went from a couple hundred thousand troops to a few million by the time the war ended
The invasion itself resulted in remarkably low casualties, save Omaha. Taken together the collective beach invasions resulted in less than 4K killed. Far less than factored under the 3-1 invasion ratio formula. The next two months were simply a slugfest between two powers, the Germans with superior ground tactics, weapons and defensive advantages vs our material, artillery, and air superiority. Monty was as sluggish and cautious as Bradley- neither drawing much praise from captured German Officers. “Wasted opportunities, no ingenuity or exploitation”. Those were accurate but unfair assessments. The US was so late to battle and the Brits couldn’t stomach irreplaceable causalities. We therefore destroyed with better artillery doctrine and close cover air
@@golfer5636
_“The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them into their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen we were to make our break on the long roundabout road to a Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for which while we trampled around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans.Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded.”_ - Omar Bradley.
- Hamilton, Nigel. Monty, Master of the Battlefield 1942-1944.
Normandy came in ahead of schedule with fewer losses than predicted. The highest concentration of German armour was in the Caen sector, more than at Kursk. The British plan was for them to sit still, draw in German armour the destroyed it - *90%* of German armour in the west was destroyed by the British. By drawing in the Germans onto the *static* left flank (British), this allowed the right flank (Americans) to break out.
@@Hero.Lone-Wolf Kursk wasn't the biggest tank battle ever. The allies took far more prisoners in Tunisia that were captured in Stalingrad 90,000 not 100,000. The Russians might have won but would not have reached Berlin in '45 without Leadlease.
5:12 Keith Douglas; 9:19 German general en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel; Cherbourg general; 14:00 approx Fr casualties; 15:55 Montgomery lack of candor with American commanders
Thanks for the speech LT 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Introduction Way Too Longggg
shame about some of his photos that are labelled wrong
he doesnt explain five things-why the american pre landing bombardment -both sea and air was so ineffective at omaha and why the bombardment pre operation goodwood was not deep enough-7km not 14km, why the allies were so unprepared to fight effectively in the bocage, why development of allied armour was so far behind german armour after seeing tigers and panthers in italy and tunisia in 1943 and why infantry particularly english were still doing frontal assaults in daylight without armoured protection-it took the canadians to show the use of kangaroos(m7 priests without their 105mm howitzers) as armoured transports at night to break the german lines.there were too many english infantry casualties during the early assaults that were repelled with just a few 88mm guns, the first appearance of 12ss hitlerjugend was a revelation because of its motivation and size. the allied use of stop gap tank destroyers was only a partial solution to their tank inadequacy
Interesting comments. Your correct analysis is well documented.
Warfare is confusion and error. The perfect plan is mostly elusive. Hindsight is a commentators most favourable supporter.
Doubtless, his book will state that everything that went wrong was Britain's fault.
To be honest, I probably would have been one of those that committed suicide. I didn't even know that happened.
The Germans at Operation Goodwood in Normandy had five lines of defence with dug in 88mm's and heavy Tiger and fast Panther tanks for mobility. Operation Goodwood was mostly _'not'_ bocage but open ground more suitable for tank battles, where the German long range 88mm's would be at an advantage.
Monty's plan was *not* for British forces to take territory. He specifically wanted to draw in German armour onto British forces to grind them up *keeping them away from the US forces for them to break out (Operation Cobra).* That was even stated at St.Paul's school in Fulham prior to the landings. To do that he was confident British armour could match German armour - US armour would struggle or most likely be overwhelmed. *A 12 mile sector around Caen saw more concentrated German armour in all of WW2.* Operation Goodwood was not British forces taking territory, as the plan was for the US forces to do that, Monty specifically states this here in this link in an interview with Edward R Murrow. Transcript....
_"The acquisition of territory on the eastern flank of the beachhead in the Caen sector was not really important. What was important there was to draw the maximum number of German divisions, and especially the armour, into that flank. The acquisition of territory was important on the western flank [the US sector]." ...."an accusation drawn at me, that I ought to have taken Caen in the programme on D-Day! And we didn't. I didn't mind about that because....The air force would get very het up because I didn't go further down towards Falaise and get the ground suitable for airfields. I didn't bother about that, it would have meant enormous casualties in doing it and it wasn't necessary."_
_"I could reply to that criticism that on the American front the line from which the breakout was finally launched was a line the St.Lo-Periers road, should have been captured in the initial plan by the American 1st Army on D-Day plus 5, that was the 11th June. But they didn't actually capture it until the 18th July. But I have never returned the charge with that accusation. ...until now"_
_"I have never understood why Ike said in his dispatches that, when the British failed to break out towards Paris on the eastern flank. The Americans were able [to break out], because of our flexibility, to take it on, on our western flank. I have always thought that was an unfair criticism of Dempsey and the 2nd British Army."_
- Field Marshall Montgomery (1959)
th-cam.com/video/A_TB9wHRRSw/w-d-xo.html
The RAF chief Tedder, wanted Monty fired wanting open territory to the south towards Falaise to setup his airfields saying Monty was not pursing territory aggressively enough. Monty would have none of it. Operation Goodwood was engaging the massed armoured German defences drawing them in to British lines, grinding them up moving slowly. Here is a 1970s objective British Army Sandhurst internal video analysing Operation Goodwood, with even German commanders who were there taking part. At the beginning it specifically states Monty told Generals O'Connor and Dempsey not to run south to Falaise, not to take territory. Look at 6 mins:
th-cam.com/video/udW1UvSHXfY/w-d-xo.html
Monty was not too concerned with Caen as it would consume too many resources to take. Cities always do. He was more concerned with grinding up German armour in the field. Although by the time of Operation Goodwood only the southern suburbs were in German hands.
Monty was in charge of all of Operation Overlord. He wanted the German armour away from US forces, to allow them to break out. It worked. That is what he wanted and planned. Monty never saw Caen as important but never criticised US forces..... until 1959 when they were snidely at him about Caen to hide their inadequacies. He criticised them for taking St.Lo a month late - with little German armour around for a month. The Germans did send some armour to St.Lo with the US forces making it worse for themselves to capture the place.
Even US General Bradley agreed with Monty. Bradley wrote that:
_"The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus, while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we (the Americans)were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride, this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for while we tramped around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded"._
Well then the idiot Montgomery shouldn't have launched it.Evidently nothing was learned at Caen
Rambo, the Brits destroyed over 90% of German armour in Normandy. Most around Caen. Monty would not put the Yanks against German massed armour as they would have been annihilated. Monty saved a lot of Yankee lives.
He also had to take command of *two* US armies in the Bulge as they lost it. Parts of the USAAF had to be put under RAF control as well. Monty saved the U.S. asses. Sad but true.
You trampled cabbage leaf,Monty did not accomplish anything but slow the allies down at Caen & and allow the Gerries to escape from the falaise pocket.Most noted military experts agree Monty should have been removed.Incompetence and dereliction of duty.He would have been removed by the Gerries or the Rooskies - maybe even shot.Patton would have been in Berlin if it wasn't for Monty's methodical mess ups.The Brits really wanted to hang him from a sour apple tree *th-cam.com/video/9TCUCxYYHpA/w-d-xo.html*
Rambo, please get therapy. Please. That video link castigates the Yanks by Yanks.
Waterhead we know you're crippled between the ears but evidently your ears don't work either.They clearly mention Monty as he commanding that sector.Have your handler listen for you.Montgomery should have been sacked.They have a saying for guys like him in Texas - All hat,no cattle
17:48 killing of POWs; 21:44 indoctrination of Germans 23:18 Alsatian deserter ; 25:51 Am psycho neurosis 30K cases
Oh, shut up man!
Antony Beevor starts at 4:55.
I enjoyed the graceful and learned introduction
That introduction from the politician was a bit long winded…. Not to take anything at all away from Mr. Beevor’s magnificent genius, only his valuable speaking time for us….
A pity Beevor is rather infactual in much of his writings. He is a good story teller. He should have been a Hollywood script writer.
@@johnburns4017
On balance John, Hollywood scripts are less pro-American than Beevor's books.
@@thevillaaston7811
Too true!
Not a single Hollywood reporter at Allied HQ
HQ blaming Montgomery
*Alan Brooke's own words*
*"Triumph in the West, by Arthur Bryant, From the diary of Field Marshal Lord Alan Brooke, entry for 5 October 1944:Page 219" During the whole discussion one fact stood out clearly, that access to Antwerp must be captured with the least possible delay. I feel that Monty's strategy for once is at fault, Instead of carrying out the advance on Arnhem he ought to have made certain of Antwerp in the first place. Ramsay brought this out well in the discussion and criticized Monty freely....."*
Or Bernard himself after the War admitting it
*The Guns at Last Light, by Rick Atkinson, page 303* *Even Field Marshall Brooke* had doubts about Montgomery's priorities *"Antwerp must be captured with the Least possible delay" he wrote in his diary Admiral Ramsey wrote and warned that clearing the Scheldt of mines would take weeks, even after the German defenders were flicked away from the banks of the waterway" Monty made the startling announcement that he would take the Ruhr with out Antwerp this afforded me the cue I needed to lambaste him.......I let fly with all my guns at the faulty strategy we had allowed Montgomery. He would acknowledge as much after the war, conceding "a bad mistake on my part"*
*From a PHD at King's College who also notes Ramsay/Brooke warned Monty about the Scheldt Estuary*
*Eisenhower's Armies ,by Dr Niall Barr ,page 415* After the failure of Market-Garden, Eisenhower held a conference on 5 October 1944 that not only provided a post mortem on the operation but in which he reiterated his strategy for the campaign. Alan Brooke was present as an observer, noted that IKE's strategy continued to focus on the clearance of the Scheldt Estuary, followed by an advance on the Rhine, the capture of the Ruhr and a subsequent advance on Berlin. *After a full and frank discussion in which Admiral Ramsey criticized Montgomery freely, Brooke was moved to write, I feel that Monty's strategy for once is at fault,instead of carrying out the advance on Arnhem he ought to have made certain of Antwerp in the 1st place....IKE nobly took all the blame on himself as he had approved Monty's suggestion to operate on Arnhem*
*How about Air Marshall Tedder*
*With Prejudice, by Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder, Deputy Supreme Commander AEF, Page 599"* *Eisenhower assumed, as he and I had done all along, that whatever happened Montgomery would concentrate on opening up Antwerp. No one could say that we had not emphasized the point sufficiently by conversation and signal*
*How about Monty's Chief of Staff*
*Max Hastings, Armageddon:The Battle for Germany,1944-45 Freddie de Guingand Monty's Chief of Staff telephoned him saying the operation would be launched too late to exploit German disarray. That XXX Corps push to Arnhem would being made on a narrow front along one road,Monty ignored him*
*How about IKE's/Allied HQ Chief of Staff Bedell-Smith*
*Max Hastings, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany,1944-45* The release of the files from German Signals by Bletchley Park conclusively showed that the 9th & 10th Panzer Divisions were re-fitting in the Arnhem area. With their Recon Battalions intact. *Yet when Bedel-Smith(SHAEF) brought this to Monty's attention "he ridiculed the idea and waved my objections airly aside"*
*How about IKE's Private Papers?*
*The Eisenhower Papers, volume IV, by Edward Chandler By early September Montgomery and other Allied leaders thought the Wehrmacht was finished . *It was this understanding that led Monty to insist on the Market-Garden Operation over the more mundane task of opening the port of Antwerp. He ignored Eisenhower's letter of Sept 4 assigning Antwerp as the primary mission for the Northern Group of Armies*
*And of course Admiral Ramsay who knew a deep water port was needed*
*Ardennes 1944,By Sir Antony Beevor, page 14* Sir Bertram Ramsey ,Allied Naval commander-in-chief had told SHAEF and Monty that the Germans could block the Scheldt Estuary with ease. *The mistake lay with Monty, who was not interested in the estuary and thought the Canadians could clear it later*
*Try looking up Churchill's biographer Martin Gilbert who took over 20 yrs to finish the 8 volumes on Winston's life*
*Road to Victory, Winston Churchill 1941-45,by Martin Gilbert* A British War cabinet memo suggested that the appointment of Monty was from the point of view of it's reception by public opinion. *Apparently that clinched the War Cabinet's vote for Montgomery; based strictly on military accomplishments, the case for him was very weak*
Another Oxford Grad and Sandhurst Professor
*The Second World War by John Keegan p. 437* The Plan was the most calamitous flaw in the post Normandy campaign .It was more over barely excusable, since Ultra was supplying Montgomery's HQs from Sept 5 onward with intelligence .As early as Sept 12 Monty's own intelligence reported the Germans intended to hold out along the approaches to Antwerp. Monty - despite every warning and contrary to common military sense - refused to turn his troops back in their tracks to clear the Scheldt Estuary
5 minutes of introduction 🙄
M80
A.
Beevor has always undermined primary German sources in his studies. That's why he has blundered both Market Garden and Ardennes unlike much better military Swedish historian Christer Bergström and Dutch R.G.Poulussen. I have never appreciated Beevor much. He is flattering too much his American readers which became painfully obvious in his fiasco to not understand how terrible blunder US General Gavin made in Nijmegen (Market Garden).
Keep repeating your bullshit evidently another account name from John Burns.The 82nd had too many objectives.The moron Monty had to open up Antwerp like SHAEF & Senior British Officers demanded.If OMG worked they would be dead in the water because no resupply or reinforcement
Peace-Of-Mind
A good comment
Ignore the sock account troll, it's just hating..😂
Here here! Beaver is nothing but an opportunist yank sycophant
Should have left the lover of Swiss boys in the Channel.Some of his best work actually at least he wasn't getting soldiers killed
Some of Beevor's assertions and conclusions about D-Day are questionable, to say the least. Like some other modern historians he writes to sell books, not relate facts. His writing is littered with supposition and invention.
he writes to sell books to Americans.
Example?
You sir are an ass clown. He writes detailed well organized books with citations as long as the bible. You write three sentences with not one documented example.
Many monty fanbois don't like AB because he tells the brazen truth about the overblown Bernard
Li[NM😅
Beevor is wrong about Field Marshal Montgomery once again! Beevor is making the mistake of viewing WW2 battlefields, through the lens of modern times, with all the modern warfare niceties that that involves. This was a different time. It was never Montgomery's intention to take Caen. He said as much in his autobiography. It was understood by the Americans beforehand. The British were going to draw as much of the enemy strength as possible in the Caen area, so that the Americans could break out on the other side. This constant Monty bashing that Beevor feels the need to engage in when he visits America, is very cheap and sad. There were certain people, Tedder for one, who had their own motives for wanting Montgomery out of the way. Tedder was viewed with great suspicion by Churchill for this very reason. Beevor is pumping a long discredited line, which once sounded good, but has been proved as being nothing more than propoganda.
These one sided positive history writers r being replaced by balanced and more source driven youtube historians. Thankfully