SKILL AS COMMANDER

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXV, Issue 134, 8 May 1945, Page 5

SKILL AS COMMANDER

MONTGOMERY’S ' RECORD

NAME WILL LIVE LONG

In grading the military leaders on the British-American side historians will have to go a long way to find a man who will rank higher than the dramatic, Calvinistic son of a North of Ireland Anglican bishop, FieldMarshal Sir Bernard Montgomery. “Cocky, confident Monty”, as an American war correspondent described him. Loved, damned, criticised, imperturbable Montgomery, who led the Eighth Army in writing one of the most glowing chapters of this war’s history; in forming the course of that history; Montgomery, who has commanded the British group of armies on the Western Front in the battles since D-Day, who turned the tide of battle when von Rundstedt made his counter-attack and break-through at the Ardennes. In his little battle caravan he recently received the unconditional surrender of the German Generals and armies against which he lias pitted his skill and his strength since D-Day. Montgomery, who came into the picture as a revitalising force at El Alamein, was there at the death of Nazi hopes. And what manner of man is this Montgomery? He has been described as tough and .ruthless, rude, “an impossible person to deal with”, bombastic, a born actor who sees himself as another Cromwell, who leads his men as to a Crusade. He is a non-drinker and a non-smoker. Particularly he is a non-smoker. Montgomery, it is said, reads a chapter of the Bible* every night before he goes to bed. He laces liis pungent speeches with texts. He wears in the field the famous black beret of a tanker he picked up in the desert (it used to have a New Zealand badge on it), a grey jersey and a pair of flannel “bags”. He also lias in liis kit four or five battledresses lie got from New' Zealand stores. “MY TROOPS.” He varies his black beret with a wide-brimmed Australian hat, decorated with the badges of all the divisions under his command. Thus he identifies himself personally with all the troops he leads. Aiiu when he refers to them they are aJ-.vays “My troops” . . . “My army”; . And, if his main theme is Calvinism, there is also about him a raggishness, and a free, clipped speech that borrows largely from what are called Americanisms. His orders are homely . . . “Tomorrow we will give the enemy a bloody nose”, he is quoted as saying on one occasion.

John Gunther described him: “Montgomery looks something like a luuvk, something—l don’t mean this disparagingly—like a fox.” Even with all those words the picture of Montgomery is not complete. Thousands of stories are told about him, and every one bears a single hallmark. They depict him as the absolutely self-confident man, who knows what he is about to do and is so at ease about it and about the men who will do it with him that there is no doubt left that ho will carry out his plan. He demands and compels efficiency. He is quoted as telling one senior officer who had failed him in some particular, “You’re a good soldier—but not good enough for 111 c.” It is characteristic that one of the officers he sacked, a major, had failed to provide tea for an advanced detachment of troops. Regarding his men as the most vital of his weapons, and their morale as tho greatest single factor in battle, he took good care of them.

It was Gunther who during an interview in Malta asked Montgomery what was his prescription of leadership, and the answer is most revealing. “First, no failure can be tolerated. Since failure is inadmissible, the scope of operations must be limited to what is practicable. “Second, the General in command must not bo prodded. into anything too grandiose for the means at his disposal. “Third, the General must refuse to be rushed. He must be allowed to pick his own time. No matter what the pressure may be—and sometimes the pressure is enormous —he must set himself against anything premature. “It’s a life work to make an army. A life work. An army is a tool, a weapon. You have to forge it, temper it, sharpen it before you wield it. The first imperative is morale. Morale depends on confidence. On confidence. Also morale depends on victory. Men like an army that is winning.” Though the picture of Montgomery in the public mind is the picture of the daring, fear-nothing General, those who have had a‘ chance of studying him closely say that lie is' a most conservative General. He weighs all the chances beforehand, works out the answer to all problems as an essay in military science. And it is stated that text-books be will write will be the text-books for future generals. Mr Churchill summed him up: ‘Let me pay my tribute to that vehement and formidable General, General Montgomery—a Cromwellian figure, austere, severe, accomplished, tireless, bis life given to the study of war, who lias attracted to himself in an extraordinary measure the confidence and devotion of his army.” THE ARMY'S CHURCHILL.

Montgomery has a background. He was born in England of an Ulster family in 1887. He lived some of his early life in Tasmania. He was a Sandhurst product when lie entered the Army in 1908. He served in the First World War, was wounded and decorated. Then he had some years in Palestine. Transjordan and India. When this war broke out be was commanding a division in England—a division ho led in France, and out at Dunk lie went to the Eighth Army at the instance of General Sir Harold Alexander. But his appointment was an accident. General W. H. E. Gott (“Straffer Gott) was killed in an aircraft accident on his way to take over the command. Montgomery was second choice. He wa9 not popular when he first went to Cairo. He was too scathing in his criticisms of his predecessors. But he was what the Eighth Army wanted at El Alamein—him and the weapons that came, with him, the new guns, tanks and the air support. To that Army he did what Churchill did to Britain. He gave it confidence in itself and confidence in its leader. He was ruthless in achieving that confidence. . . ■ but neither he. nor that Army, ever lost it. And he gave it victory. Spectacular victory. Ho led it, in victory, all the way from El Alamein to Italy, and when tie left it to take over his higher command the world saw him as a picture of victory. There was a time—at the grim Ardennes mordent —when American journa s clamoured for him to be given the supreme Command. Could any other British General, however efficient, have achieied th On January 9, 1945, he declared: “Having crossed the Rhine we will crack about in°the plains of Northern Germany chasing the enemy from pillar to post. , . On March 24 he declared: Complete anddec.Hve defeat of the G ei-mans is ; certiin There is no possibility of doubt. And on April 16: “German public opinion cannot say the Germans are sick A u m thev have got to go on. It tnerc wo. any public opinion it would rise up and sav ‘finis, but if anyone does rise up he somewhat o£ * prophet.