What do you think?
Rate this book
Hollow Heroes: An Unvarnished Look at the Wartime Careers of Churchill, Montgomery and Mountbatten
These revealing portraits of Churchill, Montgomery, and Mountbatten expose the truth about the most famous British figures in WWII history. Hollow Heroes separates fact from fiction regarding three of Great Britain’s most revered World War II–era military leaders—Winston Churchill, Bernard Montgomery, and Louis Mountbatten—revealing that their reputations were largely built on deception and dishonesty. Examining the influence of class in the British Army, historian Michael Arnold notes that officer promotion was based more on social background than effectiveness. Field Marshall Montgomery feared and envied Gen. Patton, whose rate of advance was nearly always twice that of Monty’s. Meanwhile, the services of Field Marshals Wavell and Auchinleck, two of Britain’s finest commanders, were largely lost to Britain because of Churchill’s interfering in field matters and his contrivances to remain in power after Singapore was lost on his watch. Adm. Mountbatten’s fumbling in India is also realistically portrayed, exposing the “man for the century’s” overly embellished reputation.
- GenresHistory
383 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 19, 2014
12 people are currently reading
18 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 17, 2015
The book is a polemic on three of the major players on the British side during World War II; Winston Churchill (who was prime minister), Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery (military commander of the British Army), and Admiral Louis Mountbatten. Mostly Arnold discusses how the many kudos that these three men received, weren’t merited by what they did.
To begin with Churchill, he does give him credit with keeping-up the morale of the British nation during its’ most trying time (during the Blitz), but that his self- described ‘military genius’ was a myth. Just like in WWI, where he was behind the Gallipoli debacle, almost all of his ideas in WW2 turned out badly.
His demand for assistance to Greece/Crete so weakened the British North African Army, that they weren’t able to hold off the Afrika under Rommel until he was at the door to Cairo. Rommel was stopped at the first Battle of El-Alamain but Churchill then fired the generals in charge and replaced them with Montgomery.
Montgomery who was to fight Rommel at a time when the Afrika Corp was one-half the size of the reinforced British, was then given the laurels for stopping Rommel. But per Arnold, anyone with the knowledge of Rommel’s shortcomings and with twice the men and tanks as their adversary could have won that battle. But Montgomery failed to follow-up the victory and allowed the Afrika Corp to reassemble and make a defensive stand that prolonged the war. This is backed up from the war diary of Rommel and his second in command.
Much of Arnold’s discussion of Churchill and Montgomery has to do with their mutual admiration society.
Unlike most generals, Churchill always backed Montgomery to the hilt no matter how inflammatory or insulting his comments about his Allies (and especially Eisenhower and Patton). When Monty pushed Eisenhower to allow him to attack across the Rhine in Operation Market Garden, his planning was so inept that at the end, he was back to his starting line after massive casualties to the Airborne troop he used.
Most of the American Generals could not deal with Monty’s need to always be in the forefront by calling his own press conferences and then taking credit for all that was done, even if he wasn’t involved. He bypassing of the northern shore of the Sheldt which protected Antwerp, led to a major battle (fought by the Canadians) later on and the loss of the use of the port for three more months.
There are many stories relating to the problems of the British ‘old boy’ network in the choosing of officers and staff members. It was more important as to who you went to school with than how good a tactician you were.
Lord Louis Montbatten was a cousin of the Royal Family (his nephew Phillip was to marry Princess later Queen Elizabeth II) and seemed to lead a charmed life no matter what he did. The invasion of Dieppe, had been put off by the naval high command, but Montbatten went ahead anyway. After this disaster, he was promoted by Churchill and sent to South East Asia to fight the Japanese on the Malayan peninsula.
Having planned an invasion for September 1945, he landed his troops on beaches that couldn’t hold the weight of tanks or armored vehicles. Thankfully the Japanese had already surrendered or his troops would have been sitting ducks. After the war, he was sent to India to help with the partition of the colony into Moslem and Hindu parts. In a hurry to get back to the Navy, he completed his job in fourteen weeks instead of the fourteen months that had been projected. Problems with the partition have led to four wars between India and Pakistan and seventy years of animosity between those two nations.
From the point of view of an American reader, all of these petty squabbles seem to be ridiculous. Why not have the best and the brightest at the head of your military forces? But considering the problems that we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan, by a military still fighting Vietnam, it’s understandable. Like the British in WW2, our military has become too politically savvy for its’ own good.
This is a well documented and well written monograph, and gives a totally different look at the major players for the British in WWII.
Zeb Kantrowitz zworstblog.blogspot.com
To begin with Churchill, he does give him credit with keeping-up the morale of the British nation during its’ most trying time (during the Blitz), but that his self- described ‘military genius’ was a myth. Just like in WWI, where he was behind the Gallipoli debacle, almost all of his ideas in WW2 turned out badly.
His demand for assistance to Greece/Crete so weakened the British North African Army, that they weren’t able to hold off the Afrika under Rommel until he was at the door to Cairo. Rommel was stopped at the first Battle of El-Alamain but Churchill then fired the generals in charge and replaced them with Montgomery.
Montgomery who was to fight Rommel at a time when the Afrika Corp was one-half the size of the reinforced British, was then given the laurels for stopping Rommel. But per Arnold, anyone with the knowledge of Rommel’s shortcomings and with twice the men and tanks as their adversary could have won that battle. But Montgomery failed to follow-up the victory and allowed the Afrika Corp to reassemble and make a defensive stand that prolonged the war. This is backed up from the war diary of Rommel and his second in command.
Much of Arnold’s discussion of Churchill and Montgomery has to do with their mutual admiration society.
Unlike most generals, Churchill always backed Montgomery to the hilt no matter how inflammatory or insulting his comments about his Allies (and especially Eisenhower and Patton). When Monty pushed Eisenhower to allow him to attack across the Rhine in Operation Market Garden, his planning was so inept that at the end, he was back to his starting line after massive casualties to the Airborne troop he used.
Most of the American Generals could not deal with Monty’s need to always be in the forefront by calling his own press conferences and then taking credit for all that was done, even if he wasn’t involved. He bypassing of the northern shore of the Sheldt which protected Antwerp, led to a major battle (fought by the Canadians) later on and the loss of the use of the port for three more months.
There are many stories relating to the problems of the British ‘old boy’ network in the choosing of officers and staff members. It was more important as to who you went to school with than how good a tactician you were.
Lord Louis Montbatten was a cousin of the Royal Family (his nephew Phillip was to marry Princess later Queen Elizabeth II) and seemed to lead a charmed life no matter what he did. The invasion of Dieppe, had been put off by the naval high command, but Montbatten went ahead anyway. After this disaster, he was promoted by Churchill and sent to South East Asia to fight the Japanese on the Malayan peninsula.
Having planned an invasion for September 1945, he landed his troops on beaches that couldn’t hold the weight of tanks or armored vehicles. Thankfully the Japanese had already surrendered or his troops would have been sitting ducks. After the war, he was sent to India to help with the partition of the colony into Moslem and Hindu parts. In a hurry to get back to the Navy, he completed his job in fourteen weeks instead of the fourteen months that had been projected. Problems with the partition have led to four wars between India and Pakistan and seventy years of animosity between those two nations.
From the point of view of an American reader, all of these petty squabbles seem to be ridiculous. Why not have the best and the brightest at the head of your military forces? But considering the problems that we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan, by a military still fighting Vietnam, it’s understandable. Like the British in WW2, our military has become too politically savvy for its’ own good.
This is a well documented and well written monograph, and gives a totally different look at the major players for the British in WWII.
Zeb Kantrowitz zworstblog.blogspot.com
June 11, 2025
Even after the war, Churchill continued to distort in order to attract praise for
what he projected as his own, unique turn of phrase. In March 1946 he delivered a
speech in Fulton, Missouri in which he made the much-quoted statement: ‘From
Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across
the Continent’.244 This aphorism was taken, as he had intended it should be, as yet
another great Churchillian creation and ever after has been called the ‘Iron Curtain
speech’. It became a catchphrase and slogan for the West and was attributed to
Churchill. The truth is somewhat different. Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda,
Joseph Goebbels, had founded Das Reich, a weekly newspaper, in 1940. He was
not involved in the actual running of the paper but he wrote an editorial. In the
edition of 25 February 1945, Goebbels wrote:
If the German people lay down their weapons, the Soviets, according to the
agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, would occupy all of
East and Southeast Europe along with a greater part of the Reich. An iron
curtain would fall over this enormous territory controlled by the Soviet
Union, behind which nations would be slaughtered.
Not only was Churchill’s much-vaunted expression not his own, but it had in
fact been lifted from a publication that only 13 months earlier had come out of the
very regime that he condemned and treated with contempt. Not only was this
plagiarism but hypocrisy as well.
what he projected as his own, unique turn of phrase. In March 1946 he delivered a
speech in Fulton, Missouri in which he made the much-quoted statement: ‘From
Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across
the Continent’.244 This aphorism was taken, as he had intended it should be, as yet
another great Churchillian creation and ever after has been called the ‘Iron Curtain
speech’. It became a catchphrase and slogan for the West and was attributed to
Churchill. The truth is somewhat different. Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda,
Joseph Goebbels, had founded Das Reich, a weekly newspaper, in 1940. He was
not involved in the actual running of the paper but he wrote an editorial. In the
edition of 25 February 1945, Goebbels wrote:
If the German people lay down their weapons, the Soviets, according to the
agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, would occupy all of
East and Southeast Europe along with a greater part of the Reich. An iron
curtain would fall over this enormous territory controlled by the Soviet
Union, behind which nations would be slaughtered.
Not only was Churchill’s much-vaunted expression not his own, but it had in
fact been lifted from a publication that only 13 months earlier had come out of the
very regime that he condemned and treated with contempt. Not only was this
plagiarism but hypocrisy as well.
July 29, 2025
How could they get away with it?
The fact that Churchill, Mountbatten and Montgomery were considered such great men for so long is incredible. Michael Arnold book sheds light into who they really were and you leave this book feeling angry at how history could be played with for so long. This was an incredible read and I just couldn't put the book down.
The fact that Churchill, Mountbatten and Montgomery were considered such great men for so long is incredible. Michael Arnold book sheds light into who they really were and you leave this book feeling angry at how history could be played with for so long. This was an incredible read and I just couldn't put the book down.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews