Customer Reviews

Ike and Monty: Generals at War

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Norman Gelb's "Ike and Monty: Generals At War" is a solid historical look at the two most influential Allied commanders of the Second World War: Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery. While "Ike" gained his fame from leading the great coalition forces to victory in Europe, without ever having commanded front line troops - save his dual role of Supreme Allied Commander and Land Forces Commander after 1 Sept 1944. Ike was a career staff officer with no direct combat experience. In contrast, "Monty" was a soldiers' commander, having served as a junior officer in the lines during the Great War, and then commanding troops from regimental to Army Group in the Second World War. The contrast in combat experience of these two great figures could hardly be greater. In fact, these divergent backgrounds form much of the basis of controversies associated with these two men, both during and after the war.

Readers should be aware that the controversies surrounding Ike and Monty were/are not based on trivialities of differing personalities and/or military experiences per se, rather that the experiences of these two individuals shaped how each approached leadership, both tactically and strategically, and that these differences lead to stress and controversy. For example, it cannot be doubted that Monty possessed one of the keenest tactical minds of the war - Eisenhower by virtue of his position was rarely if ever in a position to drive tactical decisions. On the other side of the equation Ike clearly had the upper hand with respect to leadership of coalition forces where concern about inter-national friction and politically necessities were key - Monty's handling of the press during the Battle of the Bulge serves as one poignant example of his inability to handle "sticky" political situations. Commanders on both sides of the Atlantic recognized the strengths of these leaders: Joe "Lightning" Collins had great admiration of Monty's tactical leadership and ability to maintain a high degree of morale in troops he led, while a personality no less than the CIGS of the British Army, Alanbrooke, felt that Eisenhower was likely the only Allied leader during the war that could have held together the coalition as he did.

Gelb deals unbiasedly with these issues and many others as he presents a compelling story of these two men and their roles within the larger Allied victory over Hilter's legions in North Africa and NW Europe in 1943-45. As if to stress the point made above about the inter-Allied controversies being beyond the scope of petty personality differences Gelb writes on p. 415 "The quarrel that persisted [here Gelb is referring to inter-Allied controversy over strategy] - and still does among historians - was not so much about which country or service won the war, but how it could have been won more efficiently, more quickly, with fewer casualties, and less grief." This is at the heart of Gelb's analysis of Ike and Monty, that their differences in training and experiences lead them to make fundamentally conclusions about how the war should be prosecuted. Monty believed in minimizing horrid losses of human life like that occurring in the Great War by maximizing troop morale through employment of overwhelming "metal over man" (or Colossal Cracks as Monty termed it). On the other hand Ike was struggling to maintain a fragile Alliance where national interests and political influences needed to be considered in development of military strategy, points on which Monty rarely reflected. Thus in the end neither Monty nor Ike truly represented the fullness of what was needed to prosecute the war fully and quickest with the least loss of life. Gelb deals with these issues constructively and fairly, leaving the reader with a greater appreciation for the complexities of command decisions leading to victory in Europe. Overall, this is a 4.5 star book worthy of a read by serious students of the Second World War, as well as those broadly interested/intrigued by the functioning of coalition forces in war.

This book not only portrays the relationship between Eisenhower and Montgomery but gives a vivid and complete description of the important events that transpired in Europe and Africa during World War II. Best of all, it is done in a very professional , easy to read style.

This was a very readable book that presents the backgrounds and careers of Eisenhower and Montgomery. While the book does come up short in fully analyzing the clashes between the two men, he does give a good account of the pressures Eisenhower was under and how maddening it must have been for anyone to deal with "Monty" for any length of time. The ending seemed abruptly cut off, but I would recommend this book for those wanting a brief overview of these two generals.

I was under the impression based on the title of this book that the author had some real insight into the relationship between Ike and Monty, however if he did this was not presented in the book.

The Book starts off well presenting the Backgrounds of both Ike and Monty however when the book reaches the WWII stage, it then just becomes a brief review of the campaigns in Europe and the roles played by both men.

This book was a real disappointment to me.

War makes for strange bedfellows. Two of the strangest were key members of the winning team in World War II: Western Allied commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, who rose to top rank in the U.S. Army despite never having a field command; and Bernard Law Montgomery, a distinguished British field commander who let no one, least of all Ike, forget it. Just how they got along, and didn't, is the subject of this book.

"Ike & Monty" is a dual biography of sorts, concentrating on the pair before and during their time leading the assault on Nazi Germany. Straddling two very individual stories is part of the problem Norman Gelb encounters with his narrative. Another part is that, while published in 1994, there's very little here that will be new to anyone who has been following World War II scholarship, The sharp personality and policy differences between Ike and Monty have been pored over since the 1960s; nothing new there.

Gelb does tell an at-times gripping story with real objectivity. Montgomery remains a figure of much scorn among Americans, as reading Stephen Ambrose or watching "Patton" will show, but Gelb sees him as a more complicated figure of genuine accomplishment. As ground commander of D-Day landing forces, Monty managed a skillful thrust-and-parry against a stiffening German counterforce by using British and Canadian troops as a buffer and sending U.S. troops under General Bradley in a daring gambit that averted a potentially bloody stalemate.

It was the one time Montgomery acted counter to his image as gloryhog and chauvinist, an image he too often cultivated with his haranguing, supercilious tone. Even worse was his surfeit of caution. "He is so proud of his successes to date that he will never willingly make a single move until he has concentrated enough resources so that anybody could practically guarantee the outcome..." Eisenhower once said.

When exactly Eisenhower said this is something Gelb doesn't reveal, an all-too-common failing with the quotes used liberally in his text.

Regarding Ike, there is little here to clash with conventional wisdom. Diplomatic almost to a fault, Ike was "unable to think reflexively in nationalistic, confrontational terms" and was thus able to forge a mighty alliance. Even when Gelb takes shots at Ike's leadership, suggesting a kind of dithering at the crux of his command, he does so without any real vigor.

What made the two men work as well as they did together, despite their issues, is also not made clear. When Monty and Ike first joined forces in 1942, Allied victory was not a foregone conclusion, but Gelb seems to think it was, and his narrative while concrete lacks a sense of suspense or drama. Their friction is well documented, though a final falling out, after the post-war publication of Monty's sharp-tongued memoirs degrading Ike's command, comes as an afterthought, another of the riddles at the heart of the enigmatic Monty.

I liked reading this book. Alas, despite not being an especially well-read World War II student, I didn't feel I learned much from it. Gelb's account is fair, and at times riveting as it goes into some friction points at length, but if you want to know how a fractious relationship nearly compromised the Great Crusade, you'll find as many questions here as answers.

As a student of World War II history, and the European theater in particular, I hadn't read much about the importance of Eisenhower's leadership during the war. This book is an eye-opening look at his key role as Supreme Commander. Eisenhower's relationship with the British hero Montgomery is also explored in depth and provided great insight into the contentious nature of their relationship. For those not familiar with General Montgomery, this book provides a unique perspective of his strategic brilliance along with his tremendous hubris. After reading this book I was amazed by the effective coalition of American and British forces, including the Normandy invasion, that involved the brilliant administrator Eisenhower and the strategic mastermind Montgomery. A very enjoyable read!

As a historian, I've read several types of books for several reasons. Not being an expert on the Second World War, I read much of this book discovering just what happened during this century's biggest struggle. Knowing something of Ike and very little of Montgomery, I was able to fill in some of the blanks. If you are looking for a military history, a John Keegan work this is not. If you are looking for some real insight into the personal, professional, and commander/lieutenant relationship, you will be left wanting. If you are looking for a brief overview of the history of Ike's and Monty's relationship, you will enjoy this read.