Rommel and Montgomery
SIR,—Surely there are two possible reasons why Field-Marshal Mont- gomery " was not among those who contributed to an appreciation of Rommel " in Brigadier Young's biography, an omission which seems to have vexed Mr. Band. (Incidentally, Mr. Band is hardly entitled to say that Sir James Grigg in his review commented on this absentee from the eulogists " adversely," when Sir James used the words " somewhat remarkably Montgomery is not one of these.")
Firstly, why should he have been? Everyone knows that Montgomery never underestimated Rommel: he would hardly have hung in his caravan photographs of his enemy, so that he might study Rommel's features, if he had done so, and if he. later, in Captain Liddell Hart's words, " expressed the view that Rundstedt was the more formidable opponent of the two," there was no slur in such a verdict. The Field-Marshal has paid tribute in the past to Rommel's abilities, and his opinion of him as a commander is on record. Why then should he add to it?
Secondly, do we know that Montgomery was invited to contribute his appreciation? If Sir James Grigg has found in Brigadier Young's book that " Montgomery is subjected to a subtly indirect process of belittlement which one reader at least found silly," it is certainly on the cards that the Field-Marshal was not asked to contribute his piece.
Mr. Band suggests that " any army commander worth his salt would have achieved results similar to Montgomery " in Africa. One hopes that many other British generals would indeed have emulated Montgomery's successes given the chance ; but as any military historian will agree, success in battle is not just a matter of having the advantage over your opponent in numbers, supplies, or even tanks, much though that helps. The inestimable service that Montgomery rendered the Eighth Army, as I often heard from friends who had fought in it since the beginning (some
of whom had no great love for the Field-Marshal), was that he restored its morale, infused even the cynical with new $nthusiasm, and made the soldiers believe that after all the many ebbings and flowings of the campaign they and he would win a decisive victory. And they and he —r- did. Not for nothing did Major-General de Guingand say that Monty's well-known beret, produced at the right moment, was worth a division.
I found the implied disparagement in Mr. Band's letter disturbing, and I hope that others did so. It seems odd to wish to extol a German general whom von ,Hassell described as Hitler's " darling " and largely blamed for the African " mess," and who had the doubtful honour of being assessed by Goebbels (the first to bark at those whose National Socialism seemed untrustworthy) as " an exemplary character," at the expense of one of our own commanders, but for whose efforts, and the efforts of other great soldiers, we might none of us be here.
Rommel was a courageous and gifted soldier„who had, to quote Liddell Hart again, " a real touch of genius in the tactical field," but he was clearly la6king in strategical grasp. One has only to think of Normandy. Field-Marshal Rommel's ideal command was—I suggest it with no malice —an Army Corps.—Yours faithfully, R. N. B. BREIT-Smut Inverchapel, by Dzuzoon, Argyll.
Previous page
