The Memoirs of Field-Marshal the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, K.G.

by Bernard Montgomery

Librarian this edition lacks an ISBN.

Genres: History, Biography, Military Fiction, World War II, Nonfiction, Military History, War

574 pages, Hardcover 1st. U.K. edition

First published January 1, 1958

About the author

Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, KG, GCB, DSO, PC; 17 November 1887 – 24 March 1976), nicknamed "Monty" and the "Spartan General", was a British Army officer. He saw action in the First World War, where he was seriously wounded. During the Second World War he commanded the Eighth Army from August 1942 in the Western Desert until the final Allied victory in Tunisia. This command included the Battle of El Alamein, a turning point in the Western Desert Campaign. He subsequently commanded the Eighth Army in Sicily and Italy.

He was in command of all Allied ground forces during Operation Overlord from the initial landings until after the Battle of Normandy. He then continued in command of the 21st Army Group for the rest of the campaign in North West Europe. As such he was the principal field commander for the failed airborne attempt to bridge the Rhine at Arnhem and the Allied Rhine crossing. On 4 May 1945 he took the German surrender at Lüneburg Heath in northern Germany. After the war he became Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) in Germany and then Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

Reviews

[Ivana Books Are Magic · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're not into history or memoirs, you probably won't enjoy this book that much. This is a book that is best suited for those who really are interested in Marshal Montgomery, his life and/or the time period he lived in. In other words, if you are interested in WW2 history and army life, this is a good read for you. I would describe this book as being quite straightforward and honest. It is no great work of literature, but it does shad more light onto Montgomery, his life and battles, so if that is what you're looking for, you probably won't be disappointed.

In fact, it could be said that as far as memoirs go, this one is neither poetic nor particularly eloquent. Montgomery is not much of a writer, that much is clear. He hasn't got the eloquence or style that Churchill or many others had. Fortunately, Montgomery doesn't try to be something he is not. For most part the writing is simple and he never tries to sound more eloquent that he really was. You have this feeling that Montgomery just tells his story, and he does it in an honest and straightforward way. From his childhood to strategic victories, Montgomery is clear about what he thinks about something or someone.

I found his account of his growing up quite touching. The way Montgomery describes always wanting to be in the army, but having financial troubles that made it difficult sounded very honest to me. I wasn't aware that at the time one couldn't really live on an army pay (perhaps things haven't changed that much but still it seems that back then only sons of well to do people could have dreamed of an army career). Funny how things change, isn't it? Back then, being in the army was almost a matter of prestige, something to be proud of and many thought of it as a service to their country. It seems that less people want to be in the army today, or not for the same reasons, but I'm starting to digress.

Montgomery seems to be somewhat of a particular person and I can imagine him as being more than a little awkward. However, I'd also say that in his own strange way he's even charming at times. At any rate, I quite enjoyed reading his account of things, his thoughts on military strategy and leadership. I suppose it might be that I just find this skinny, simple and surprisingly religious army figure fascinating. I really do. He seems like such a contradiction in terms at times, but that might be the historical difference. Our generation and world is a different one, and we must put some effort into understanding historical figures. Montgomery is a man of his times and I think that in most of his decisions he has proven authentic. Montgomery does not come as really modest in his writing and some hold it against him. I don’t. I think he just wrote this book in a very natural kind of way, reflecting his thoughts. Whether you agree with him or whether you find his thoughts and way of thinking annoying, that's another question.

This book could be described as a fascinating insight into a mind of an important historical figure. That is the way I see it, but naturally whether it will be interesting to someone is a matter of personal preference. I'd say that the he story of Montgomery's life, told in his own words is an interesting read, both for its content and form. As I said, I liked Montgomery's narrative voice, yet I have a feeling would probably enjoy this book ( at least a bit) even if I didn't. Packed with information as it is, it would please anyone interested in WW2 or that history period in general. Naturally, it is very useful book if you are interested in military strategy and army live. Definitely the book to read if you wondered how the Fox got beaten. The reflection on that historical battle is very detailed; it includes map and all kinds of information. All in all, this memoir is probably exactly what it should be, a combination of personal and professional writing and reflections of an experienced Field Marshal.

[محمد على عطية · Rating 3 out of 5]

لا شك أن إنتصار مونتجمري على روميل في العلمين - نقطة التحول في مسار الأحداث في شمال أفريقيا في الحرب - قد جعل من هذا الرجل أحد أشهر القادة العسكريين في بريطانيا، ومهد له الطريق لتولي مناصب أعلى في السلم العسكري البريطاني، فمن قائد الجيش الثامن إلى قيادة مجموعة الجيوش الواحدة والعشرين المشاركة في الإنزال في نورماندي وتحرير أوروبا الغربية، إلى الحاكم العسكري للمنطقة البريطانية في ألمانيا بعد الهزيمة، إلى رئاسة أركان القوات البريطانية بشكل عام، وأحد المشاركين في تأسيس حلف شمال الأطلنطي.
بالقطع لا يمكن قراءة هذه المذكرات بمعزل عن قراءة مذكرات وشهادات الأطراف المشاركة -سواء من نفس المعسكر أو المعسكر المقابل - للتمييز بين الحقائق والمبالغات. ومن الواضح في هذا الكتاب أن مونتجمري كقائد منتصر قد استفاض في الحديث عن محطات الانتصار ودوره وتوجيهاته فيها،بينما لم نجد مثل هذه الاستفاضة في إخفاقات أخرى، مثل عملية جاردن ماركت (أرنهيم) مثلاً.
استوقفتني عدة فقرات في هذا الكتاب أحببت أن أسجلها هنا:

من آراء مونتجمري في القيادة وسمات القائد، والذي يصلح أن يكون سمة عامة في الحياتين المدنية والعسكرية:

وإنها لضرورة مطلقة أن يتجنب القائد الغرق في التفاصيل، وهذا ما كنت أفعله دائما . فقد كنت أقضي الساعات الطوال في التفكير في جو من الهدوء بالمشاكل الكبرى.
وفي إبان المعركة على القائد الأعلى ان یفکر باستمرار في الطريقة التي يستطيع أن يهزم بها العدو. فاذا غرق في التفاصيل تعذر عليه ذلك، إذ يغيب عن ناظره ما هو جوهري، ويرى نفسه مسوقا إلى اتخاذ قرارات لن يكون لها إلا تأثير ضئيل على المعركة ، فلا يبقى ذاك الصخرة الصامدة التي يستطيع أركان الحرب الاستناد اليها.
إن التفاصيل هي من شأن أركان الحرب، وما من قائد أعلى يهتم يوميا بالتفاصيل ولا يجد الوقت للتفكير في جو من الهدوء ، يستطيع أن يضع خطة سليمة لمعركة من المعارك على مستوى عال، أو إدارة العمليات بفعالية على نطاق واسع.
إن هذه المبادىء تصلح أيضاً في الحياة المدنية، لا سيما في السياسة. وكثيرًا ما أرى الوزراء وغيرهم من الشخصيات العاملة في الآلة الحكومية لا یدرکونها. ويمكننا أن نسطر على أضرحة كثيرين من الرجال السياسيين المكلفين بوظائف حكومية عليا الأسطر التالية :
"هنا يرقد رجل مات ارهاقاً لكثرة انشغاله بالتفاصيل . لم يكن لديه أبداً وقت يفكر فيه لأنه كان دائما يقرأ الاوراق. لقد كان يرى كل شجرة، ولكنه لم يكن يرى الغابة أبداً!"
---------
رأيه في الروس:

"وأخيراً وقع الصدام بين الروس والغربيين. وسرعان ما أظهر تصرف الروس بوضوح، على الرغم من كونهم محاربين ممتازين، أنهم على الجملة آسيويين برابرة لم يحظوا أبداً بحضارة مشابهة لحضارة بقية أوروبا. فقد كان تفكيرهم في كل مشكلة يختلف تماماً عن تفكيرنا. وكام سلوكهم ولا سيما مع النساء يثير في نفوسنا الذعر. وفي بعض قطاعات المنطقة الروسية لم يبق عملياً ألمان، إذ هربوا جميعاً قبل وصول البرابرة."
وفي موضع آخر ذكر أن هملر بعد أسره أراد أن يتحث إليه بخصوص "أن حرباً أخرى ستقع في أوروبا عاجلاً أو آجلاً لقطع الطريق على (جموع القطعان الآسيويين الزاحفة على أوروبا الغربية بقيادة الروس)، وأن بريطانيا تقف وحدها في وجه الخطر الآسيوي بعد أن إنهزمت ألمانيا".

--------
رأيه في أنماط الاستعمار المختلفة بناءً على اختلاف سياسات الحلفاء في مناطق سيطرة كل منهم في ألمانيا بعد هزيمتها:

"كانت هناك مشكلة اخرى متأتية من انه اذا كان على المانيا أن تدفع نفقات الاحتلال البريطاني، فيجب أن تتاح لها القدرة على فعل ذلك. ولكن طاقتها الصناعية كانت منخفضة انخفاضاً كبيراً، وسفنها اضمحلت وأموالها في الخارج مجمدة. واللاجئون يتدفقون كالسيل على المانيا الغربية. وكان هذا يقتضي إاطعام عدد أكبر من السكان، وتوفير عمل لهؤلاء السكان الذين يستحيل تصديرهم ، وما دامت ألمانيا لم تستأنف مبادلاتها الدولية فلن تتمكن من الدفع.
ولم يكن الروس ليهتموا بكل هذا. ففي رأيهم أن على ألمانيا أن تدفع تعويضات سريعة على شكل آلات وعلى صورة عمل، ذلك أن ألمانيا المستاءة المقطعة الأوصال ستساعد على انتشار الشيوعية.
وكان الفرنسيون يدركون وجهة النظر البريطانية، ولكنهم كانوا حذرين ازاء كل محاولة لإعادة بناء ألمانيا عدوتهم القديمة.
أما الأميركيون فلم يكونوا يحبذون فكرة ايقاف ألمانيا على قدميها لمجرد ایجاد سوق لبريطانيا العظمى او للتوفير علي المكلف البريطاني.
وفي حال عدم وجود رقابة رباعية، سنضطر إلى معاملة منطقتنا كمستعمرة، وكذلك سيفعل الفرنسيون في منطقتهم ، ولكن الفرق بين نظرياتنا الاستعمارية كان كبيراً، فالفرنسیون سيبقون منطقتهم كسيحة، بينما سنجتهد نحن لانهاض منطقتنا."

-----------
وأخيراً وبدون تعليق، رأيه في الجندي البريطاني:

"ولا شك أن الجندي البريطاني طيب. إنه معتدل في حال النصر وذو فروسية إزاء أعدائه. وسكان البلدان الأخرى يحبونه على وجه العموم لدماثته وتساهله على الرغم من أنه يجهل اللغة المحلية، كما يحبونه لقدرته على التكيف وعلى الظهور في كل مكان وكأنه في بلده وبيته. وهو لهذا السبب يمثل بلاده في الخارج خير تمثيل".

[Данило Судин · Rating 3 out of 5]

З цієї книги я прочитав розділи 6-10, які присвячені бойовим діям в Півн. Африці 1942-1943 рр.
Загалом, Монті ≈ Паттон. Та ж самозакоханість, впевненість в своїй правоті. І головне - авторитарність. Монті часто згадує, як десь стопорився наступ, він викликав командира дивізії / корпусу, "пояснював", що треба енергійніше наступати. І далі все йшло як "по маслу".
З іншого боку, в брит. армії такий був хаос до Монті, що тут тільки "сильна рука" могла щось вдіяти: командири сприймали накази як ідеї бо обговорення, а не виконання.
Монті відверто копіював Роммеля: і "фішка"-аксесуар (в Роммеля окуляри, в Монті - берет), і образ "простого солдата". Навіть 10-ий корпус Монті "списав" з корпусу "Африка" Роммеля.
Цікаво, що саме під час Ель-Аламейна британці виявили: основна сила німців в протитанкових гарматах. І тоді ж вони збагнули, що цими гарматами є 88-мм зенітки.
З недоліків книги. Це найславославніші мемуари зі всіх, які я читав. Навіть Паттон близько не підійшов: він просто замовчав всі бойові дії. А от Айк написав 80% правди про свої помилки. А в Монті помилок не було взагалі - якщо вірити мемуарам. Під Ель-Аламейном Роммель втік, бо погода завадила (ні, Монті не дав наказу наступати, а командири боялися виявляти ініціативу). На лінії Марет та в боях за Ваді-Акарит Монті все зробив ідеально (ні, двічі випустив Роммеля, бо командири боялися виявити ініціативу). І так, це Монті виграв битву на перевалі Кассерін, бо "натиснув" на Роммеля на лінії Марет (ні, Роммель вичерпав сили сам, а Монті їм не дуже заважав).
І головне, що Монті "м'ясник". Його метод: 1) наступ, що породжує загрозу прориву, 2) "м'ясорубка", коли противник намагається зупинити наступ Монті, втягується в тривалі бої, які "перемелюють" його сили, тобто в противника просто закінчуються люди / техніка / запаси, 3) прорив ослабленого противника. Все. Ніякої елегантності в стилі Роммеля. Просто виграє той, в кого більше сил.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an absolutely fascinating read that follows Montgomery's career from his early years at school and the Army Academy to his days in active service with the army and at Whitehall. The writing is eloquent and readable and really feels as if he is speaking directly to you, recounting all the decisions he made (both bad and good), the actions he took and the misdemeanors he got up to during his life. This is not only a superb insight into the workings of the army during the years following the First World War but also into how it affected the soldiers themselves as Montgomery shares not only his own views but those he received from the men on the ground (as well as the powers that be) whether they be good, bad or indifferent. This is a superbly valuable book from every point of view and one that can be read and enjoyed by all.

[Mike Harbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is Monty in his own words and is extremely valuable to the scholar or historian who wants to better understand the man and his war record. Of course, as a memoir this work must be read with due skepticism. However, Montgomery can be very frank and self-deprecating at times. Like most memoirs, Montgomery uses this work to forward his own agenda and his versions of events, and noticeably skips some events all together (the Battles on the Sangro River in late 1943, for example). Also, at the time this was written, the ULTRA secret was still classified, so no mention is made or acknowledged.

Finally, the reader must take into account the political climate at the time the book was written. The war was long over but was still being fought out in memoirs, newspapers, and early historical accounts. The Cold War was in full swing and Great Britain was still fighting to be seen as an equal to both the United States and the Soviet Union.

All in all, Montgomery's memoirs provide great insight to the personality and flawed brilliance that made the man a hero to his country and are a valuable contribution to the historical record and should be read along side similar works by Eisenhower, Bradley, and Alan Brooke.

[KOMET · Rating 4 out of 5]

In his own inimitable way, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery relates his life as a soldier in service to his country -- both in peace and during the First and Second World Wars --- which lasted 50 years (1908--58).

Born in Britain in 1887, Montgomery spent his early years in Tasmania, where his father, an Anglican priest, worked for a time. While Montgomery considered his father one of the prime influences in his life (along with his wife, Winston Churchill, and Dwight Eisenhower), he makes clear that there was no love lost between him and his mother, who showed him little care and affection as a child. Indeed, she would more often give him a hard time than not.

While Montgomery mainly speaks about his military career and the people who played key roles in said career, he speaks (albeit briefly) with deep love of his wife and son David.

All in all, an interesting memoir.

[محمود المسلمي · Rating 5 out of 5]

اعتدت عند قراءة المذكرات الشخصية للأعلام آلا أسلم لهم عقلي؛ حتى إبليس نفسه عند ما يكتب مذكراته سيظهر لك الوجه البرئ . يحكي الفيلد مارشال مونتجمري موقف أظهر لي الوجه المتلون لقادة الحروب العالمية فيقول أنه أرسل لمكتب الحرب في لندن تقرير يبرئ ساحته من تهمة النهب في قرية فرنسية محتله اختلاس فيها بعض ضباطه دجاج و طيور من أحد الحقول. و يتناسى أنه و امبراطوريته (التي لا تغيب عنها الشمس ) سلبوا و نهبوا شعوب و بلدان بأكملها في الشرق الأوسط

[Michael Koch · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Memoirs of Field-Marshal the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
Field-Marshal Montgomery wrote this book in 1958. Several of his contemporaries, mostly American, found this book controversial. They found him either inaccurate in how he expressed his peers or his battles were less successful than he indicated. He states early on that he is very stubborn once he decides what he wants, or what he believes is correct with his military decisions. I can easily imagine that in a multinational war or where multinational armies or merely multiple egocentric generals were involved, he would be incorrigible and vocal in his opinions. In the Second World War there were certainly numerous enough Generals who were posted above their capacity in the armies of all the allied nations. In general, I found most of his technical descriptions to be logical and viable. However, there were political situations, where the best resolutions needed to be successful politically and not necessarily the best military solution. By the very end of his career, perhaps Montgomery too, had been elevated above his capacity.

Montgomery realized that the British Army in The Great War was not up to what was necessary. War was undergoing a massive change as a result of education and technology in society. Internal combustion engines were revising everything; cars and trucks were everywhere. Chemicals were growing (the Allies found out the impact of poison gasses) machine guns were impactful as was barbed wire. Cannons were replaced with trigger mechanisms, only officers could give direction and the more senior the better. Soldiers were learning how to read orders and directions, and sanitary requirements were necessary. Between the two wars, Montgomery learned as much as he could about modern weapons and how new tactics and strategies were needed to use them effectively. He realized how badly Britain needed to upgrade its senior officers at that time too.

Readers most interested in military tactics and strategy would be most interested in Montgomery’s time as commander of the British Eighth Army in north Africa. Focus was placed on soldiers’ morale, Staff and Planning at all senior levels (Army, Corps, Divisions, Brigades) and Intelligence. Coordination with Air Force was also critical so that all Arms are working together. He discusses the roles and movements of the Eighth’s Corps, Divisions, and Brigades and points out where Rommel and the Africa Corps were defeated by applying Rommel’s techniques against himself. There were also other important activities that he emphasised during that period as his team improved. His Eighth and other British and American Armies were successful at driving German troops from North Africa under command of the American General Eisenhower. Montgomery’s next commands included Sicily and Italy, and then broader responsibilities were assigned. These all included Canadian soldiers and would be of interest to those who wish to learn his use of those units.

As Montgomery was promoted further, there were other aspects of Army management that he learned for himself as he worked with other senior Generals of larger Armies, Army Groups and larger geographic areas. This included multinational commands of British, Canadian and Polish troops with USA Corps and Divisions for short periods or specific battles. There is a reasonable description of the Arnhem battle for those who wish to see his views. His command included specific and narrowly defined roles during Hitler’s last battle, known by some as the Battle of the Bulge. His role in the post VE Day period in Berlin is one of the more interesting sections of the book for me. Little is included on this period by many of the “war books” of the War period.

His post as CIGS (Chief of Imperial General Staff, chief of General Staff in Britain, the Commonwealths and Colonies) allowed Montgomery to make a good try at ensuring that Britain and the others do not allow themselves to become as unprepared as they were before the war with Germany. He might not have had enough time although he distributed a good preliminary version. He also received general approval of British general staff. Canadian and American general staffs also recommended that military discussions regarding unification of policy and strategies before another war. One of the challenges of course, was the financial status of Britain and the possibly that strategy regarding colonies would, and should, face dramatic revision.

The last section of the book discusses the then current status of NATO and identifies the opportunities to Russia and the USSR. He identifies specific areas where NATO and its members need to be active. Most of this section was well noted at the time. The biggest gap in NATO’s defence plans was the strong and active positions taken by China in its military and economic power.

This book would be of interest to readers whose forces fought under Montgomery and readers who like to think about the future and their country’s role in it. The last section should be of interest to persons in position to make an impact on their country’s future. Four Stars

[Geoff Howe · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must for any student of WW2. A huge personality who made a huge contribution.

[Danne · Rating 1 out of 5]

THE most overrated general in WW2 by far, in fact hes one of the worst generals ever that "graced" a battlefield

[R.M.F. Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is the 27th May 1940. The Allied armies in France and Flanders are in disarray, as they retreat back to Dunkirk to avoid the German onslaught. A crucial gap has appeared in the Allied lines that needs to be plugged. It has to be done now. At night. And in front of a friendly unit. A disaster is in the making.
But cometh the hour, and cometh the man - that man is Montgomery. His unit, the 3rd infantry division, conducts the tricky manoeuvre with great professionalism. The gap is plugged, and the crisis averted.
There was no magic formula to this: Monty had his unit rehearse this move during the 'Phony War,' and when the crisis came, it was done, what Monty would call an 'infinite capacity for taking pains.
Monty was the ultimate military professional.
And there in lies one of the 'problems' with Monty: he was the ultimate professional when a lot of his peers were not. And that caused problems, because Monty didn't give a damn whom he upset.
War is a serious business. Do it properly or die. Simple as that.
And this approach was vindicated at El Alamein, at the Mareth Line, in Sicily, in Italy, in Normandy, and the Rhine crossing in Germany.
Much is made of Monty's personality flaws, to much IMO. He got the job done, he won battles.
Was he perfect? Of course not. Market Garden in 1944 was a grave mistake, and his caution prevented him from crushing Rommel's army after El Alamein.

But as one of his chief engineers once said, Monty was not a nice man, but nice men don't win wars, and he delivered.

I sincerely doubt if the liberated peoples of Western Europe ever gave a damn about Monty's personality.

[Kai Shiden · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first two thirds of the book are worthwhile. The final third about the formation of NATO and Monty's thoughts on European unity, really needed an editor. Once you get to that point expect a bit of redundancy and sentences that end with: "as I mentioned in chapter 10", "as I mentioned in chapter 9" and so on. Even the last third is still of interest if you want to know about what the thinking was in Britain and NATO with regards to planning for World War Three prior to 1958.

Monty's experience of World War one is just one short chapter. What is there is interesting but it would have been nice if it was fleshed out a bit more. The chapters on World War two are generally more thorough although there are altogether too many speeches. Also the author only covers off the highlights of what happened in each battle and refers the reader to other texts for a fuller description. There are some good maps and Monty talks about his plans for Alam Halfa and Al-Alamein. Subsequent battles are not covered to the same extent and during the late war period he mainly focuses on coordination between the different nations and his issues with the broad front strategy. This ties into what appears to be the book's thesis, the need for unified command, which he expounds on in the NATO chapters.

As it's a memoir, you really need to read it in conjunction with some other sources to get a full appreciation of the events covered.

[Julio The Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

To paraphrase what Mr. Dooley said about Theodore Roosevelt's memoir on the Spanish-American War, "It should have been called ALONE IN CUBA", these memoirs by Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery, Viscount of El Alemein, should have been entitled I WON WORLD WAR II. Want proof? Monty was once asked to name the three greatest generals in history and he replied, "Well, the other two were Alexander the Great and Wellington". Montgomery's vast ego is actually the most endearing thing about him. Here are his savage wartime disputes with Eisenhower, over the Broad Front versus Single Front strategy after D-Day (Montgomery felt he could have won the war for the Allies a year earlier) , a never-too-late defense of Operation Market Garden, or "The Bridge Too Far" fiasco, and his dismissal of Indian troops who fought for him and Italian troops who fought against him as "cowards". No wonder General Omar Bradley called Monty "the most overrated general of the war". Very moving, though, are Montgomery's bitter memories of his unhappy childhood under his dominating, intemperate mother, who hated him with a passion: "Find out what Bernard is up too and punish him for it!" Monty was a sad man who changed the world.

[Ben Vos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great for understanding the man behind the decisions, and interesting on the politics of high command at the end of the war and afterwards. Comes across as truthful. A few interesting vignettes but not a great deal of human interest. And almost no low level strategy let alone tactics explained which is a shame although I know he would have argued that was covered in other books. Not a searching insight into the man if that's what you're after, although he's honest on his opinions of everyone else.

[Keith West]

Brilliant mind and clarity of vision only matched by memoirs of Napoleon, Churchill and Thatcher. Does not waste time on areas covered by other writers but concentrates on overarching strategy with some telling, sometimes amusing anecdotes. He never shies away from his weaknesses but is not afraid to coolly assess and celebrate his strengths. Never afraid to speak truth to power, whatever the consequences and acknowledges his occasional failures. A great general who never risked soldier's lives unnecessarily.

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have not finished, but I already know what I think about this book. There are some passages that are interesting and readable. There are many others that have all the charm and appeal of a PowerPoint presentation. The gist seems to be (I wish I could write this review as a PowerPoint presentation);
1. I was right about everything
2. I had a good team behind me

[محمد المحيسن]

مذكرات لرحلته العسكرية سجل فيها معاركه في الجيش وترقيه واتصاله بقادات الدول وملاحظاته عنهم. وذكر مشاكل بريطانيا في الحرب العالمية الثانية وما واجههم بعد هزيمة الألمان وعداوته للروس. كنت قرأت المذكرات لأنظر في القضية الفلسطينة في وقته لكنه عرج عليها بسرعة ولم يطل

[james woodcock · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent memoir

This is an outstanding account of one of the best military leaders of WW2 and his contribution to the war effort is immense

[Mark Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating memoir by one of the worlds greatest Generals. Always a controversial character this book caused quite a stir when first published.

[Teresa lonergan]

Montgomery

Over
all interestIng a bit boring midway about the home office etc A very interesting man and a great general.,

[James McCarthy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book. As an American I haven’t heard the best of things about him. He makes good arguments on why the war lasted longer than it did.

[Marc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bon livre pour les amateurs de l'armée britannique pendant la deuxième guerre mondiale. Le Maréchal s'enlise souvent dans des détails peu intéressant particulièrement dans la fin du livre où il semble être complètement dépassé par la politique de l'après guerre. Livre très intéressant pour comprendre la tournure des évènements qui ont mené à la défaite des troupes allemandes mené par Rommel.

[Ivana · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a fascinating insight into a mind of an important historical figure. The story of Montgomery's life, told in his own words is a fascinating read, both for its content and form. Montgomery is not a writer that much is clear. He hasn't the eloquence or style that Churchill had. Fortunately, Montgomery doesn't try to be something he is not and just tells the story in an honest and straightforward way. From his childhood to strategic victories, he is clear about what he thinks about something or someone. In his own strange way he's charming and I enjoyed reading his account of things. Maybe it is just that I find this skinny, simple and surprisingly religious army figure fascinating. I really do.

I like Montgomery yet I would probably enjoy this book if I didn't. Filled with information as it is, it would please anyone interested in WW2 or that history period in general. Naturally, it is very useful book if you are interested in military stuff and army live. Definitely the book to read if you wondered how the Fox got beaten! The reflection on that historical battle is very detailed; it includes map and all kinds of information.

Montgomery is not really modest and some hold it against him. I don’t. Perhaps I’ve read too much sf to be into the modest kind of guys:)

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

While obviously self-serving (as memoirs often are), Viscount Montgomery’s account offers the reader a unique perspective of the Anglo-American alliance during the Second World War unencumbered by Cold War politics. Montgomery emerges as an officer whose concern for his subordinates and the soldier at large appears genuine. In this reviewer’s opinion, this contention (if true) abates detractors’ arguments that the Field Marshal was timid, only launching offensives when the outcome was certain.

However, despite this reviewer’s personal admiration for Montgomery both as a gentleman and as tactician, it must be noted that too often his memoirs descend into a point-by-point repudiation of even the most minor criticism. Such attention to trivialities (often at the expense of describing major operations in detail) casts Montgomery as being rather thin-skinned, a disagreeable characteristic for a man of his stature.

[Kirill Abbakumov · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat interesting yet not very exciting slog of a read as Montgomery uses his memoirs to blame everyone but himself for all the problems he faced. The book even opens with a controversy and Montgomery's apology.

This man has been through a lot and has seen many things through, and there are some interesting parts where the describes his approaches to leadership, which I found valuable. Strategy and logic behind battles and army organization have also been notable.

However, everything else is held together with theories and rants about effective army administration and structures of organization, and being upset about not being able to change much because other people in power did not see his point or agreed with his approaches.

[Thamrong · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is written by Montgomery himself. This is a story of his past life during his younger days, growing up as a normal kid in London and his illustrious career in the Army. A truly fascinating biography. Who could guess once a wayward cadet at Sandhurst rose to be the highest rank in the British Army?

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too self pleasing. A little short on historical facts.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read the World War II parts concurrently with Eisenhower's "Crusade In Europe" and Harry Butcher's "My Three Years With Eisenhower," then went back and read what Monty had to say about his earlier and later life. Was very interesting to read all three books together.

One cannot deny that Montgomery, writing in 1958, was very much concerned with his own legacy!

Am writing this review in 2017, about eight years after the original reading, and I intend to revisit certain sections of this book again soon, as I am in the midst of reading several accounts of the 1940-1943 desert war. Will update this review if I have new thoughts.

[Wayne]

Great book for managers