@@nickelmouse451 yep, you nailed it in that it is a very niche subject. I suspect that a lot of those interested are intrigued by the idea that these generals are basically confronted by Rommel, but pressured by Churchill. In a sense, this is more about Rommel than the cavalcade of generals. That, plus the fact that it is the main British front for a long time (having been kicked out of Europe in Norway, France and Greece, it is a definite low point). But yeah, as such, a backwater niche.
When people talk about material superiority in the desert, I always ask them "ok, but how did they achieve this material superiority? Through the RAF, Royal Navy, and Malta"
@@jankutac9753 very true, but you could go one step further and point to the greater industrial base of the UK and especially USA. Industry is the starting point of material superiority, though as you correctly point out, you need to be able to deliver the product, and this was seriously compromised by the U-boat "happy times", but mostly the Royal Navy was in control.
@@colinplatt1963 well I think Germany had a bigger industrial potential than any country except the USA at that time. It was bigger than France or Britain, it was more densely populated and better interconnected than the USSR. And at the beginning it had a significant headstart on the USA. If the western navies and bombers had not done their part, and if the Soviets had not kept them away from their Caucasus oil, it might have looked very different in terms of production capacity.
Well done Ed. Wavell is often not given enough credit. Rommel was amazing but there is truth in the lie lol. Monty won at 2nd El Alamein. His genius was probing attacks to burn out Rommels limited fuel reserves as the panzer scurried to and fro. Monty did enjoy vast numerical superiority by the time did attack. There were more tanks in his depot for reserves, repairs etc alone than the DAK could field. Kudos to you Ed
Thank you. A very thoughtful and measured assessment of the commanders. Alexander's comment, 'I don't understand long words' (ie 'catastrophic') sounds to me like classic British irony. What I think he means is 'I don't know the meaning of the word' or ''catastrophic is not a word we use''. He's telling his subordinates that they keep on fighting no matter what.
As the head of the ED fan club we completely agree with ED’s grades. We’re glad to see ED getting more time to showcase his incredible talent and undeniable skill.
I would agree with most of the comments, but I do have a soft spot for Alexander. To have gone through Dunkirk, North Africa and Burma does require a measure of determination. And victory doesn’t always go to the smartest general …
He was a high ranking British officer. His troupe of loyal aides would spirit him away from any actual danger regardless of whether they won or lost. It was exceedingly rare for generals to die, especially on the allied side.
Great video Ed! Would like to see your opinion on American, German and Italian generals of the African theater too! I also agree Wavell did a good job with what he had and what he had to do with it.
A really great assessment. But the 8th Army was not a solely British one - rather, it was a British led coalition with most divisions from independent dominions - South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. British historians tend to forget that. 1st South African, 9th Australian Division and 2nd NZ Division returned to Egypt in mid-1942 but they were both very disgruntled with Auckinleck's leadership. By July 1942 Auckinleck's command was in chaos, as the dominion commanders simply refused direct orders and were negotiating everything. Auckinleck's demand for the dominion divisions to be broken up into Jock Columns and Brigade Groups was (fortunately) ignored. Auckinleck's plan to "roll with the punch" at Alamein was strongly opposed by Pienaar, Freyberg and Morsehead, and in retrospect it would have been catastrophic. The question is, why was Auckinleck was left in command for so long. Sorry, but Gott was NOT "extremely well liked by the troops"! (I choked when you said that!!) South African troops held Gott responsible for defeats in CRUSADER, Gazala and Mersa Matruh, and New Zealand troops held Gott responsible for the disasters in Operation CRUSADER and at Second Alamein. There is a reason why Gott and British armoured commanders were told to stay away from the NZ Division lines. The decision to appoint Gott is utterly incomprehensible, and represents the absolute nadir of Churchill and Brooke's leadership. Had Gott actually taken command, the dominion divisions would not have obeyed his orders, and it is likely there would have been a catastrophe. On the other hand, the set piece artillery-led tactics of Montgomery were very much in line with the doctrines of the Australian and New Zealand officers (it is much overlooked that the Australian and New Zealand commanders had all learned their trade on the western front in WW1, as did Montgomery, so ). Montgomery's very blunt and rather eccentric style appealed to the Australians and New Zealanders. Montgomery listened to his experienced divisional commanders, and his battle plans were very well explained and thorough, which led to confidence.
Great analyst, when I think of Monty, I recall my grandfather's opinion of him, 8th Army Vet: "He made us feel included" and the note in Beevors Ardennes 1944, that he displays many of the traits of some one on the autistic spectrum, with his inability to reflect on his behavior
I have enjoyed all of the Little Wars videos and have often seen Ed in the background. He always gave me the sense of having so much more than was often able to be seen. I was riveted by this discussion and delighted to see Ed’s moment to shine.
It would be nice to see one on British commanders in Asia. Unlike in Africa, where the british helped co create thr Rommel legend to explain away their own shortcomings, the brits had rhe reverse problem in Asia. The british refused to see the japanese as an actually capable enemy. They watched japans mostly successful campaign in China and ascribed japanese success to Chinese incompetence rather than japanese skill. It is telling that Slim was the only Western Allied general who bothered to ask one of his Chinese counterparts how they had won one of their rare victories against Japan. Also, it would be a return of auchinleck and alexander.
Wow! You touch on just about every controversy possible about the ground commanders and their major opponent in this vid. Stand by for the flame war! Grade A+
I recently finished reading Anthony Beevor's book about the battle for Crete and the resistance afterwards. I would love to see the club play out this battle, after reading Beevor's book I was surprised to learn how close a victory it could have been for the allies had their initial defense been more aggressive.
I would love to see a collaboration between you and “We have ways of making you talk” WWII podcast James Holland is just writing a book on the Italian campaign A collaboration with a campaign game similar to your Pyrrhic Wars would be awesome
‘Italy’s Sorrow’, James Holland’s book on the Italian campaign, was published in 2009. ‘Sicily ‘43’ was published in 2021. Perhaps he is writing another, though haven’t heard about it,
Great video, thanks. Nor argument on the gradings other than, one wonders what impact the breach of security by US Colonel Fellers had on the reputations of Auchinleck and Rommel. Churchill could have opted to tell the truth about the Battle of Gazala, explaining that Rommel had been presented with the British battle plans, dispositions, strengths and weaknesses from Sept 41 to June 42, due to the Italian Intelligence having made a copy of the US 'Black' encryption code kept at the US Embassy in Rome. On one hand, Auchinleck and Ritchie were continually puzzled, to the point of paralysis, by the way Rommel seemed to know where the British army was weakest, (hence his reputation as a cunning desert fox) unaware that he had been provided, unwittingly by Fellers, with their detailed plans. As a result, they lost the confidence of their fellow senior officers and morale was made low (Ritchie was considered to be 'jinxed' or 'an unlucky' General). And what General could not look a genius if he had been provided with such information about the enemy? Of course, Rommel would never admit to being so advantaged, preferring to be regarded as a 'military genius'. (Note: he never won a battle again after the Feller's intelligence was stopped on June 29th). So, would you consider reviewing your score of Auchinleck (I agree about Ritchie, he was over-promoted)?
Churchill did as much to defeat the British in North Africa as the Italians. His meddling with Greece and it's result Crete, stopped Wavell from kicking the eyeties out of North Africa before Rommel stepped in. Monty was the greatest General during WW2. From being one of the last out of France, rebuilding the British Army in England after Dunkirk, then North Africa, Sicily, Italy and then planning Overlord. The greatest general since the Duke of Wellington.
Agree - Generals promoted above their ideal level, Auchinleck - unlucky, and bad at choosing subordinates, Alexander - Lucky and good at choosing subordinates. Monty re-energised 8th Army, and made it believe they could win - but would never admit anything not gone exactly as planned Always rated O'Connor highly.
That was brilliant Ed, an excellent and fair presentation. I imagine that you have read Correlli Barnett's classic work 'The Desert Generals'. I think you and Barnett reached the same conclusions.
Wavell was one of the best theater commander with one of the largest area of Ops, in an area of great political turmoil. With very inadequate troops for area of operations, troops being constantly micromanaged by the Churchill.
'I don't understand long words' (5:20-26). Do you really believe Alex didn't know what 'catastrophic' means? He was using sarcasm to express resolve. You've earned a D- for that one.
I think D’Este was deliberately disingenuous with the Alexander quote at Dunkirk. If not, either he misunderstood the understated evasion in the phrase, or failed to research Alexander’s education. Their are good biographies of Alexander, none of which have suggested he didn’t understand long words. He was also known for bravery in action. Furthermore, as a Theatre Commander, it’s less about managing troops on a battlefield and more about balancing political expectations against subordinates’ abilities. Alex did a fine job in Italy later and in the desert gave Montgomery the time and space to engineer the Alamein offensive success. No need for an asterisk I’d say. Great video nonetheless. Next one on the Germans?
I feel sorry for most of the British commanders who usually don't get a fair shake. TIK has done a lot of justice as have you with this video. One interesting commonality with all of the British commanders in Africa is that they were all alone only experienced commanders who had never commanded tanks before. This wouldn't be a problem as we talk against the Italians however when you have Erwin Rommel who's won the most talented German commanders of the war with a star-studded cast of Operation Barbarossa veterans, it's a bit of a mismatched especially when you consider that the British have one eye on the afrika corps and the Italians and the other eye on the entire Middle East. I could also go into another problem that they face was keeping their men motivated considering that when you look at the overall British I'll look on the war there have been so many defeats and humiliations and the anzacs had the Japanese knocking on the door.
Err.. I think you may have misinterpreted Alexander’s response at Dunkirk (if true). It’s upper class English humour not stupidity. Otherwise excellent sir. As you were. Carry on 👍👍
Yes, I think Alexander’s reply was definitely an attempt at humour and putting the men around him at ease. Sorry Ed, but I think you lose a mark for that one!
@@greva2904 Absolutely re keeping everyone calm and not flapping. But I think it is probably Carlo d'Este we have to knock a mark off for leading Ed astray rather than Ed himself. Very enjoyable. Oh PS - wasn't it Mark Clark who swanned into Rome and disobeyed Alexander's direct order, thus missing the big win? Rather think it was.
@@guyfarrish8504 Yep, it was Mark Clark. Disobeyed orders and went glory hunting in Rome… and a day later D-day happened and knocked Mark Clark off the front pages anyway. Allied generals never trusted him again after that. Incidentally, Alan Whicker wrote his war memoirs a few years before he died (and very good they are too) and mentions that he interviewed Mark Clark years after the war, and Mark Clark was still feebly trying to paint his glory hunting in a good light. He failed.
monty was supposes to protect clarke's flank from the east and did literally nothing.He dithered worse in Italy than Sicily if one can imagine. Clarke still took Salerno,Naples and Rome in a campaign that was the ignorance and brain fart of Churchill on full display - there was a soft under belly and it belonged to him
Awesome channel! I started wargaming in the army. Even my first company commander in my first armored assignment would play with us and the colonel would get us huge sand tables.
Thank you Miles for addressing the British elephant in the room. The consistency to spin every incompetency and defeat into a legendary adversary or victory.
Nice job, Ed! All of my "Rommel" game forces are for the North Africa campaign up to 2nd El Alamein. Thanks for a nice overview! Perhaps a review of the Axis generals in the campaign next???
Thanks Ed, great video. I may be wrong, but I always thought that Montgomery fought a war of attrition, relying on greater numbers rather than maneuver, and accepting the higher losses for victory. Therefore, I wouldn't have given him an "A".
It was commonly reported as being Monty’s approach to “grind down the enemy” - and his critics were numerous because of his perceived arrogance. However Alistair Horne - who knew Monty’s son and wrote an excellent book about Monty, and Carlos De Este - both referred to his actual care for the lives of his men. He preferred to grind down material - hence abundant and profligate use of tanks at El Alamein - as opposed to men. He had a strong preference for artillery to be deployed in a set piece where resistance was softened up/ broken before the tanks went in/ with infantry in support to take possession of the ground. Had Monty and Patton possessed the diplomatic skills of Eisenhower - their reputations would be better and they would be much appreciated. I do recommend Alistair Horne on Monty, and De Este on Patton (well researched and fascinating reads).
Monty was a very good (dare I say great) General. I suspect he had some form of Autism. He was brutally honest and had little to no regard for peoples feelings but by some accounts this wasn’t intentional and often apologised when it was suggested he had hurt someone’s feelings.
Militarily yes, but perhaps not from a political perspective. It kept the Greeks in the fight longer and diverted German troops from Russia. Unknowable how it might have turned out otherwise of course, except that Italy would have been ejected from North Africa. Perhaps fighting and defeating the Germans in North Africa, at the end of long tenuous supply lines, was better than having to do it elsewhere.
@@samb2052 If Churchill would have let Wavell and O'Connor do their thing, The north African campaign would have never existed, the Africa Korps would have never arrived. The Italian would have been forced into a defensive state in all of the Mediterranean sea in fear of a landing, highly reducing it's implication in the soviet union. Churchill was good with the speeches and to keep the population motivated but was by far the worst thing for the British military.
@@armchairwargamerz357 yeah, I can see all that as possible. But sooner or later Germany needed to be defeated on the battlefield. My point is that it may have been easier to achieve in North Africa than on mainland Europe. That’s particularly true given the weaknesses of the Commonwealth’s rapidly expanded armies. A landing in mainland Europe in 1941 is unlikely to have succeeded, as much as anything because the naval lift didn’t exist.
@@samb2052 I'm not talking about a landing on mainland Europe. They could land in Sardinia and Corsica, retake Crete for those "Victory". Just having the Italian defending their coast instead of sending their men to the eastern front would have greatly helped the war effort. The whole North African campaign was just a way to save time for the Axis, the longer the allies are fighting them there the longer they can focus on the Soviet Union.
Very good analysis. Thanks Ed! North Afrika is my favorite theater, with the swirling melee of Crusader my favorite battle. I would like to see your group do Crusader!
I would agree with these assessments , however I believe the real root of the command issues in North Africa for the British was doctrine or lack of doctrine that emphasized combined arms. An able General would have seen this and pushed for it. It happened later as even Monty was slow to grasp it as he wasn't an Armoured commander or familiar with the concepts. Through out this period we saw multiple actions were Armour and infantry were commanded and acted separately to their detriment. Only By Normandy did they start to get it right.
@Ross Godding There were officers in the British army who did get it right, like Richard O Connor of the WDF and Philip Roberts of the 11th armoured division. Horrocks was also good.
My wife's grandfather, who won the MM at Walcheren, had a very low opinion of him. He did not stand much 'nonsense' from those who wished to objectively try and assess Montgomery's record.
No argument from me on any of your scores. I would add (imho); it is damn hard to "score" any of these gentlemen too harshly with Churchill constantly pulling the strings from London on key issues.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Mainly Operations Epsom and Goodwood. Arguably Epsom was a success in that it forced the Germans to prematurely commit the I. SS PzKps, but O'Connor blundered at the end by abandoning Hill 112. Goodwood was a dismal failure however and the VIII Corps' attack on Bourguebus Ridge was an unimaginative attack that ended in a disaster. If Germans made such an attack, they'd be hard pressed to replace their losses. Brits were lucky to have the lend-lease on their side during Normandy.
Monty made a habit of wearing pieces of dress to identify with the different forces under his command. When visiting Australian soldiers he would wear a slouch hat.
I also dont understand it, probaly something to do with the movie "A bridge too far", scapegoating and how people tend to take hollywood movies as absolute historical facts.
@@malusignatius well, as far as i have seen, the movie set a precedent for a lot of people, (the masses if you will) i mean how can someone call him "worst ww2 commander"?
We have been running a very in-depth campaign of East Africa and whilst I agree in principle about Wavell, East Africa was a critically overlooked theatre. in one word ‘Suez’ and that was very much in Churchills minds eye given the importance of this logistical and maneuver gateway It gets very little attentions and why we are exploring it. Best wishes
Is there a possible future of a campaign game like the Punic wars but for the Revolution using Live free to die? Maybe the Hudson River Valley Campaign ending with Saratoga?
Rather enjoyed your views, I am loathed to say that I agree with your assessment of Monty, not a great fan myself, but as a planner, motivator and winner of campaigns second to none. Cannot find None in any military books, will keep looking. Why the interest in the Western desert?
That pyrrhic war campaign got me to follow you the whole serie maybe if do some series like those having to make a diffrent history would be great specially if it were in the bronze Age or Roman or the rise of the islamic State after the death of the profit(MPBUH) ❤
For me personally I can not respect a man that can look at me with a straight face and say Market Garden "Was 90% successful" and his non taking responsibility where he starts off saying he takes full responsibility, then e blames others. Yes, he did do well in the desert campaign, but I don't see the point in taking into account only a limited part of a general's career. There are plenty of commanders over the centuries you can make look great if you only take one or two battles, or one campaign.
He only did well in the desert because it was already won. The axis were out of supply, on 2 front, almost no naval and air support. Any generals in the allied army would have won by the point Monty came to north Africa.
Ed was evaluating Africa not Europe. As for Market-Garden Monty was too reckless. Even though photo recon showed armored elements of 9th and 10th Ss Panzer divisions refitting around Arnhem he chose to still proceed with the air drop there.
@Josh Davis I did and not a big Monty fan either lol. England needed a hero general and he was it. A Bridge Too Far etc. If you study 7th Corps advance it was badly planned. One raised road and then Horrocks allowed them to stop and brew tea
@@andrewtodd5919 Please read my comment again. Here is a direct quote of mine incase you are confused "Yes, he did do well in the desert campaign, but I don't see the point in taking into account only a limited part of a general's career."
Good job Ed. Success is the only measure of greatness. And success (or failure) can only be attributed to the man at the top. There's a reason why Kimmel got canned and Nimitz got 5 stars. And leaders CAN change; Monty was brilliant in the desert but not so much in Europe (Market-Garden, anyone?). And Churchill may not have been perfect, but if not him, who?
"(Market-Garden, anyone?)" Apart from his personality, Montgomery gets most criticism for being (a) Too cautious and also (b) too adventurous - just once. Bouncing the Rhine was worth a try - if it had worked it could have shortened the war by months, at a time when the western allies were taking nearly 100,000 casualties a month in North West Europe.
@@NorthDownReader Well, yes, if it had worked. I'll assume you know the details of the plan and the subsequent operation so I won't go into them. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Market-Garden was a high-risk operation at a time when securing the Scheldt was a better idea. I also think Monty's Caen campaign could have been better, especially since it appeared to be something that was right up his alley. However I don't know of anyone who could have done better. I am not anti-Monty; if anything I am slightly pro-Monty. I was just using this as an example of how leaders can change over their careers. I wasn't seeking an argument and hope we can end this amicably. And regarding his personality, show me a great leader that didn't have one! (And no, I don't mean that literally!)
Perhaps because they were in Morocco and Tunisia, not the desert? To me the desert war refers to the campaigns across Libya and Egypt. Tunisia was a separate (but linked) campaign, by a separate army in its own right.
Staff training for senior British officers, during this period (and leading up to it), was haphazard to say the least. Simply put, it didn't adequately train officers for senior command or weed out those incapable of it. I will add, I believe Auch was probably hard done (though your assessment is fair). He was hard working and personally brave, so it is hard not to feel sorry for him. However, if one looks at his military experience in the Indian Army - particularly his training for senior command - and, the fact that his staff and senior command officers were weak/inexperienced, he probably did as well as should have been reasonably expected.
If only O'connor got to keep the 4th indian and go on to takeTripoli, Rommal would have had to start in Tunisia, would have been interesting Even though that was not so, if O'Connor had simply not been captured & was CO of 8th Army for the rest of the war, I wonder how he would have got on as the desert rat
@@Vaultboy-ke2jj he was born in England but his family home was in Donegal and he considered himself to be Irish. Most of us Scots-Irish consider ourselves to be Irish.
@@Zhenya07 not Irish as in the current nation of Ireland “It never bothered me how many houses were burned. I regarded all civilians as Shinners and I never had any dealings with them,” he wrote to Percival.”
@@Vaultboy-ke2jj there’s Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There’s no current nation called Ireland. Ireland is a geographical term for the island to the west of Great Britain
What are your opinion on Alanbrooke, considering he was almost picked instead of Monty? His diary are one of my favorite reads about ww2 and he have very.. interesting opinion on many people Also. While not being a psychologist, what are your thoughts about Monty being on the autist spectrum? as someone who interact a lot with autists, the signs are so clear to me and i feel it would explain a lot about how people view monty, both contemporaries and today
Monty was a B at best. Just because the British had better logistics then the the Germans and were able to cut Rommels supplies to a trickle doesnt make Monty a great General.
Diet and hygiene!!! Comparing Monty to Billy Martin?!?! A great display of disparate knowledge. I recall Dennis Miller around 2005 claiming that many wanted to follow Neville Chamberlain's route in dealing with Al Quaeda.... Miller than suggested that the free world post up again, like Wilt Chamberlain, and go to work.
I don't think so, not in the North African theatre as a whole. The lions were just stretched too thin over a huge geographical area and hampered by some poor equipment.
