MONTGOMERY: MILITARY MESSIAH?
Edward Lewry unpicks popular criticisms to argue that some historians may have missed the more nuanced points of Monty’s methods
Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery’s reputation has been under attack since the end of World War Two and historians have been enthusiastic in dissecting the character of a man who helped lead Britain and the Allied forces to victory. As historians move away from “great man” interpretations, they can sometimes be too quick to decry the achievements of individuals in a bid to revise the narrative and stamp their mark. This article does not present a case for Montgomery as an infallible ‘messiah’. Instead it is guided by the slightly less glamorous truth that he was a flawed, but nonetheless great commander. By accepting some personal and professional shortcomings, a more comprehensive portrait of the man is painted. For example, Montgomery had a habit of speaking very bluntly to the wrong people and somewhat made a nuisance of himself in post-war political circles as a member of the House of Lords. However, as his wartime chief-of-staff Major-General Francis ‘Freddie’ de Guingand argued, ‘Monty’ would never have succeeded as a diplomat – but he didn’t have to.
