soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article ,
Hal Hanig wrote:
>
>If that's the game we're going to be playing, let's then discount every
>favorable word we ever heard about him from anyone other than his superiors.

One thing Montgomery was not good at, at least later in the war, was
being a good subordinate. He worked well with Alexander, in that
Alexander basically let Montgomery do whatever he wanted and simply
supported him. (Not a bad thing to do with a very good field general.)
He gave Eisenhower a great many problems.

>The problem there would probably be that, if you listened to what Monty
>himself might have to say on that subject, he undoubtedly had no peers or
>betters, so one would be stuck with taking him at his word there being no
>others to consider.
>
Another thing he wasn't good at was modesty.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-