Eisenhower Versus Montgomery: The Continuing Debate [Hardcover]

G E P Murray (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 30, 1996 | ISBN-10: 0275947955 | ISBN-13: 978-0275947958

This book examines the postwar memoir fight over the broad front versus the single thrust strategy, the Allied advance on the Rhine, and the British call for a ground-forces commander other than General Eisenhower. It traces the argument in the postwar memoirs from 1946 through 1968 as well as the official histories of the United States, Britain, and Canada to see what the documents really said. What were men willing to say, what did they feel that they had to cover up? Field Marshal Montgomery was deeply chagrined that he had only one army group to command when he thought himself the most professional commander in Northwest Europe. Montgomery had little grasp of the intricacies of politics and could not understand that American public opinion made it impossible for Eisenhower to name him ground-forces commander. During the Battle of the Bulge the U.S. President and Chief of Staff settled the issue in Eisenhower's favor.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Eisenhower versus Montgomery is...both useful and refreshing....Murray's book provides a valuable introduction to the competing strategies. For the general reader, this volume cuts to the heart of the debates, clearly illuminating the logistical, political, and military limits which inevitably led to Eisenhower's "broad front" strategy. For the advanced student, this work is useful for its analysis of many of the critical authors such as Wilmot or Nigel Hamilton....[A] gem of a book for any interested in the roots of the allies' victory over Germany."-Military and Naval History Journal

Book Description

Details the battle between Montgomery and Eisenhower over strategy and influence during World War II.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 224 pages
• Publisher: Praeger (November 30, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0275947955
• ISBN-13: 978-0275947958
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.4 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #8,566,233 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars The debate minimized to personalities - too bad, May 2, 2005

By 

Mannie Liscum (Columbia, MO United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Eisenhower Versus Montgomery: The Continuing Debate (Hardcover)

Eisenhower Versus Montgomery: The Continuing Debate represents the polished published version of G.E. Patrick Murray's PhD dissertation. Like most dissertations Murray's work is fairly narrow in focus while still representing a scholarly piece of historical literature. The debate referred to in the Murray's title is centered on the strategic discord that existed in the fall of 1944 between the British and American partners in the United Nations alliance; namely, whether to pursue a narrow single thrust strategy or a broad front strategy. While multiple factors contributed to this discord Murray attempts to reduce the debate to one centered not on strategy but more on issues of command. Murray does not discount logistics or political realities in sculpting the strategic decision, but he does appear to favor a course determined more by personalities and drive to maintain (Eisenhower) or gain (Monty) command of ground forces. One can certainly not dismiss Murray's thesis as the evidence suggests that a fair bit of posturing by Monty resulted from his desire to be overall ground forces commander. Eisenhower expended a lot of energy over from summer to early fall of 1944 rebuffing Monty's requests for command, but his reasons for turned down the requests were not apparently as trivial as ego. In his attempt to put the debate in the laps of the two top commanders, Murray fails to give enough argument to the other contributing factors, such as logistics and politics.

Murray's basic approach, in terms of how he presents the "evidence" in support of his thesis, is to summarize the writings of others; namely the two main personalities - Eisenhower and Montgomery, their supporting "lieutenants", journalists, and official military historians from the wars end to the mid 1960's. Certainly Murray is able to collect the opinions of those closest to the debate but in focusing on the personalities Murray misses the bigger picture. All is not bad though as Murray does applaud the works of the official historians as most unbiased and likely to paint the clearest picture; so true.

In the end Murray' work is narrow in focus but generally solid. The book is fairly easy to read and one does get a decent picture of the personalities involved in some of the most important decisions made in Northwestern Europe in 1944. Murray provides the reader with a good set of citations from which to get a deeper picture. Three stars.

9 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The controversy made clear., January 21, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: Eisenhower Versus Montgomery: The Continuing Debate (Hardcover)

"Let us have no part in the profitless quarrels in which other men will inevitably engage as to what country, what service, won the European war." Eisenhower's Victory Order of the Day, 8 May 1945.
The profitless quarrels emerged early, on both sides of the Pond, initiated by unscrupulous journalists and soon drawing in the principals, neither of whom welcomed the controversy. Murray carefully and effectively traces the newspaper stories, memoirs, and official histories to clarify the nature of Ike's and Monty's strategic and tactical disagreements, and to reveal the sources of the ethnocentric axe-grinding which marred the victory, and provides employment for unprincipled muck-stirrers to this day, to the detriment of Anglo-American unity. Professor Murray has been kind enough not to name them, but they know who they are.
"Extremists on both sides of the water can indulge in all the backbiting and name-calling that they please - they can never get away from the historical truth that the United States and the British Empire, working together, did a job that looked almost impossible at the time it was undertaken". (Eisenhower).

(The "score" rating is a feature of the page. This reviewer does not "score" books.)