![]() |
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
But i also believe he was a terrible strategist. Though the Gallipoli Debacle is probably most quoted, he made some terrible mistakes during WW2. His posting of Gen. Percival, an extremely indecisive man to defend Singapore and Malaya. His wasting of British and Canadian troops at Hong Kong. Though they put up a good fight, it was a forgone conclusion. This next criticism will get me in trouble with some but here goes. Not being a big Montgomery fan I believe Churchill should have left Auchinleck in charge in North Afrika. Churchill wanted an immediate counter-attack after the first battle of El Alemain. Auk refused on the grounds he needed to bring his armour up to proper strength. Churchill sacked him and brought in Montgomery who told him the same thing. He would not attack until his armour was up to strength. Rommel thought Auk was a far more troublesome commander and saw the man as a better strategist than Montgomery. But that is all surmise. |
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
Papasha - thanks for giving The Auk a mention. He was a good man. I met him once; he came to my boy's club deep in the east end of London, where the 2012 Olympic area is being built. I was a boy captain there and we were introduced. He seemed very tall and he shook my hand a spent a little time talking to me. He was a popular general with his troops. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Yes I doubt if Auchinleck would have done any worse than Montgomery, perhaps better, the latter was blessed with a superiority in matériel from El Alamein onwards. The quality of a commander cannot only be judged from results alone, one has to consider the relative strengths of the armies in conflict including the abilities of the respective commanders, and perhaps a good dose of luck thrown in for good measure.
|
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
What I have learned in the meantime is quite interesting. The Japanese sent a man to Burma well before the hostilities. He was an army colonel and worked with independence thinking Burmese and especially the most rich and influential. The colonel's name was Suzuki and he was a natural spy. He was thought of as a genius pertaining to all things concerning espionage. But he was also different. He truly believed in the independence of all Asian peoples. The Japanese high command used this enigmatic man to form an anti-British Burmese army. But the same high-command regarded Suzuki with suspicion and saw him as neccessary but annoying. He worked with the Thackins who disliked the British immensly. The reasons for this I do not know, but will find out. But he did set out to and started a nucleus of the Burmese Independence Army. These soldiers turned out to be very good fighters and with training they became even more deadly. The problem was Suzuki himself. The Japanese high command wanted these people as an auxillery force fighting under Japanese command. Suzuki told them to use their own commanders and if the Japanese oppose them, then to shoot back at the Japanese. The High command was not amused. Later in the war, late 43 and through 44 some of these units did some long range work with some Japanese forces. It is believed they fought the Chindits and got a pretty good drubbing. They were suspicious of Japan to begin with, but when they told the Thakins the British soldiers would run when they saw the Japanese a serious trust issue ensued. I'll try and tell you more at a later date Cheers papasha40 |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
I always believed General O'Conner would have been a better choice (had he not got himself captured of course). |
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
By the time the second battle of Alemain happened, Rommels forces were spent. He had a quarter of the armour that Montgomery had and his men were exhausted. Plus he never gave Monty the praise he gave the Auk. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
No offense but I am less enthusiastic about praising allied generalship and strategic mastery given that they had the benefit of ULTRA, basically I could have stopped Rommel if I knew where, when and with how much yet even with all this knowledge he still managed to barely extract a "limited success" with operation Crusader.
On top of this I think you inaccurately comparing commanders (I may be wrong here but my understanding is) Auchinleck was not replaced by Montgomery he was replaced by Alexander, Montgomery replaced Cunningham. |
![]() |