I watched most of the episodes of this series, and this particular episode was a pinnacle of bias. And, this is the problem with the entire series: incredible, yet predictable, british bias. I've never actually seen such incredible bias in what's supposed to be a historical TV show.
The bias is really hard to pinpoint in this episode because it is so absolute. Anyone who knows nothing about Montgomery except what they see in this episode would think he was the second coming of Christ, but somehow nobody (outside Britain) noticed.
Fortunately, I've read and watched many other books and broadcasts about Montgomery, so the bias really stood out as incredibly outrageous. Some of the other episodes were quite informative and balanced in the information presented, which is why I watched nearly all of them. I'm not really sure why, but this Montgomery episode and the Patton episode were so incredibly biased, positively and negatively, respectively, that I found myself actually laughing many times during both of them. It was basically like an interpretation of a small section of world history by a British egomaniac.
I get the feeling that whoever wrote the series' episodes just allowed their personal bias to blast through in these two.
The second most common problem in all the episodes of this series is how many times the videos being shown during an episode were completely unrelated to what they were talking about. Sometimes is was so obvious because they used footage used in other historical TV shows that, unlike this series, actually described what was being shown in the various pieces of footage. This series seems to have just been put together using narrators reading a very long essay, never looking at the footage that was assembled by completely different people (who also never heard the very long essay that was read during their assemblies of footage).
The third problem with this entire series seems to be that they never actually realize the goal of the name of the series: "History's Verdict: Hero or Villain".
Again, it's predictably british to go on and on, speaking but never actually making a point. I mean, what's the verdict in any of these episodes? I guess we're supposed to make the call based on their incredibly biased essays, accompanied by unrelated historical footage, and I get the feeling they're just hoping and praying we make the right call, matching their bias.
As a result, the more balanced and informative episodes actually end up being a rambling mess that go nowhere. But, they were informative at least, even if they made no actual point.