Operation Market Garden, Arnhem, and Montgomery's Role

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by nadend, Sep 24, 2014.

  1. nadend

    nadend Member

    Hi all,

    Thanks again for your interest, and all your replies.

    Before I go any further, I would like to point out I still have not had the time to read more than 60 other posts in other topics on this forum, but I fully intend to do so. So apologies if I'm 're-inventing the wheel'...

    To understand how the WW2 was prosecuted, I think we need to go back to basics.

    What was the main objective(s) of the allied forces attacking north-west Europe, i.e. before any allied soldier set foot in Normandy? I've never seen these objective(s). I guess the primary objective was 'regime change' - to use the modern term, i.e. to remove Hitler and his civilian and military leaders from power, and to restore democracy in Germany. I suspect seizure of territory and the liberation of large populations was secondary, consequential gains. A good analogy is the game of Chess. If you want to win, you focus on your opponent's King, not so much on your opponents other pieces on the board.

    Before any allied soldier set foot in Normandy in 1944, many plans must have been devised on at least two levels. At the highest level, several plans, i.e. routes from the beachhead all the way into Germany, must have been proposed and evaluated. One of these high level plans was adopted, and all the others was probably relegated to the status of 'contingency plans'. At a lower, more detailed level, many plans must also have been devised. For example, the plan later designated 'Market Garden'. Some of these lower level plans was probably prosecuted only when the opportunity arose and a successful outcome was thought likely.

    Having devised all these plans, work could then start to produce the means to achieve the main objective. For example, to determine the type and quantity of transport vehicles required, and then to manufacture all that transport, to create the airborne forces etc.

    We now know the landings in Normandy (and in the south of France) was successful. As has already been suggested, military operations are do not always go to plan. For example the breakout eastwards via Caen. As the war progressed, the various appropriate 'low level' plans was selected, revised, and then prosecuted. In other words, I suspect the Market Garden plan probably existed in some form even before the allies crossed the Channel.

    No doubt in late August, early September 1944, a few of meetings took place attended by Eisenhower, Montgomery, Patton and others to discuss the next step. As we now know, Montgomery's sharp thrust to northwards to advance around the Siegfried Line towards the Ruhr was chosen in preference to Patton's alternative proposal (there was insufficient supplies to continue the attack on two fronts).

    Prior to these meetings, Montgomery must have selected and given much thought to the Market Garden plan, and probably revised it several times. I suspect even at the time the plan was being approved, Montgomery may not have known there was any Panzers in the Arnhem area.

    Detailed planning for 'Market Garden' then started. I know Montgomery learnt about the presence of the remnants of a Panzer division in the Arnhem area sometime before 17th September 1944, one source being ULTRA. I also believe Lieutenant-General Frederick Browning and the Intelligence Officer, Major Brian Urquhart was also informed. These three officers must have considered the Panzer risk (along with many other risks). Maybe they even knew the 9th SS Panzer Division had been ordered to send its armour back to Germany (ULTRA), and that only its personnel, including Panzergrenadiers, may still be in the area from the 17th onwards. It has also been mentioned many German units (remnants) was in a state of disorder, and that it was thought virtually impossible that these would reform quickly into an effective fighting force over the next few days after the 17th.

    I believe Montgomery's preparations was largely meticulous before Operation Market Garden began, and that the plan, even given the limited resources that was available, could have succeeded. But it is fair to state it was an ambitious plan with some risks. Could Montgomery have stopped this operation? Yes, I believe he had the authority to do so. But I had asked the wrong question. Should Montgomery have stopped this operation? No.

    Only after the operation had begun did most of the problems become apparent. Unfortunately, the main risk was realised, i.e. the German's did rally, and several ad hoc forces was quickly formed from widely dispersed units. These proved to be too strong for the relatively weakly armed airborne forces at Arnhem, and also delayed the advance up 'Hell's Highway'.

    I propose we do not discuss the battle of Arnhem from the 17th onwards any further in this topic (I may raise another another topic later). However, I'm interested in what was Montgomery's involvement after Operation Market Garden had begun, during the period 17th - 25th September. His whereabouts, before, during, and after the operation is not that important in my opinion. However...

    What was Montgomery actually doing during this period? (his attention seems to have been diverted elsewhere)

    When it became known that all was not going well at Arnhem, should he have intervened?

    Finally, I would suggest Montgomery's sexual orientation (if known at the time), and his relationship with Eisenhower and other commanders is irrelevant. I like to think they was all professional soldiers, and would have put such personal thoughts completely out of their minds when so many lives was at stake.

    Dave
     
  2. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    Dave,

    I have watched this thread develop and have contibuted to it in good faith, indeed I have also noted two veterans, who I respect, baulk at what they believe you were 'at' and I still contribued in good faith. All along you have 'suggested' that you don't know much, but ask questions that suggest you know a hell of a lot about Operation Market Garden; albeit it now appears you are using that knowledge to be controversial.

    Your most recent post leads me to believe that you are almost certainly looking to antagonise forum members - I refer particularly to the final paragraph in the Message immediately above. I suggest that if you are not, that you should prove it... let us know your opinion(s) with supporting evidence/facts/substance.

    Best,

    Steve.
     
    arnhem44 and kopite like this.
  3. L J

    L J Senior Member

    There is a lot of "I suspect","I believe" in post 41,but no facts .

    And,personally, I find the last sentence (about Monty's sexual orientation) not only insulting,but disgraceful.

    I agree with what Steve Mac is saying .
     
  4. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

  5. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    OK I will try to answer the implicit questions in your post.

    Re #1 Going back to basics means reading the source material that is available. The objectives of Operation Overlord and its part in the allied plans for the defeat of Germany ARE available online. For example you could read the proceedings of American-British Joint Chiefs of Staff conferences, during which the high level strategy was set. The conferences in Dec 41-Jan 42 destermined a Germany first policy. http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/3686/rec/10 The decision to launch a cross channel attack in 1944 was taken in January 1943 at Casablanca. The Op Overlord planning was undertaken by a team of planners under the direction of General Frederick Morgan in April-Aug 1943 and the plan approved at the Quebec conference in Aug 1943. Frederick Morgan wrote a book called Prelude to Overlord which explains how he develoepd the plan. All of this was undertaken before the appointment of Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Cpommander and Montgomery as commander of the land forces for the lodgement phase. The Operation overlord Operation order is here http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/1216/rec/39

    Read these and you will understand the background to Op Overlord. The Normandy landings were the advance guard top establish a lodgement for the C100 division force that was considered necessary to defeat the German army in the field. [SIZE=14.2857141494751px]In an ideal world plans might be made top down based around single objectives. In the real world people have different objectives, personal political agendas and policies and objectives may be shaped after debate and compromises. [/SIZE]

    Re #2 If you have looked at the source material - or even read the British or US official histories, you will be aware that this was the wrong way around. The planners had to make lots of logistic decisions based on a very broad plan for the invasion, even though there was no operational level plan until the appointment of Eisenhower and Montgomery. The planners knew that they needed to land around 30 divisions by D+90 and that the Americans would be on the West and the British on the East and that the British would ultimately occupy north Germany and the US the centre and south. They had constraints on the number of ships and range of aircraft that meant that the landings would be in Normandy and consist of three assault divisions - until Eisenhower thumped the table and had shipping built to land five.

    There were no detailed plans for what happened after Normandy because Normandy was far more successful than anyone imaged it would be. The planning phase line for D+90 assumed that the Germans would fall back to the Seine and Loire Rivers, not abandon France. As a result there was a lot of thinking on the hoof. A further complication was the impact on 9th September 1944 of the first V2 Rocket in London. There was a lot of pressure to do something about the V2 launch sites.

    Re #3 The biggest drive for some form of Op Market Garden was from those soldiers and airmen who had persuaded their governments to make massive investments in airborne forces, such as establishing formations of expensively trained picked troops,an air armada of troop carrying aircraft and gliders; huge investment in individual and collective training. These were justified on the basis that airborne forces offered a strategic advantage and might enable an army to bypass coastal defences and seize key objectives from the air, as the Germans had in Norway, the Netherlands. They had a solution but needed to find a suitable problem to solve. Bradley was not a fan of airborne forces and would have preferred the transport aircraft for supplies and the soldiers as leg infantry. Montgomery was a fan of using airborne troops tactically. He had used them in Sicily and wanted to use the 1st AB division on several occasions before Op market Garden. Op Market Garden was best showcase for strategic airborne forces.

    Re #4 I don't think Montgomery spent a lot of time thinking about the detail of the Op Market Garden plan. The details were the responsibility of the 1st Airborne Army/XVIII airborne Corps and XXX Corps/ 2nd British Army staffs. The key unknown was the readiness of the Germans to fight on after their dramatic defeat in France in August. The presence of a few tanks and thousands of SS men was not material. The only way to find out whether Germany would collapse with a push across the Rhine was to try it. There was a lot of sloppy staffwork not helped by the sequence of cancelled contingency plans prior to Market Garden. There may nhave been wishful thinking by staffs on 1st AB Army who were keen for the operation to take place and overlooked some of the details such as distances from DZ to objectives. The possibility that this may have been cancelled may have led to some reluctance to confront the airmen over matters such as the number of lifts and reluctance to consider a coup de main..

    Re #5 Montgomery was not in tactical command of the battle. Army group is fighting the next month's battles, Army next week's, Corps; tomorrow's battle and Division half a day ahead. If anything there were too many commanders breathing down everyone's necks. it is hard to see what Ridgeway or Browning did to help rather than hinder the efforts of their able subordinates. The one place where an extra commander might have been useful was at Arnhem, but hard to insert before the helicopter! At the same time that Op market was going on he had to be accessible to the two army commanders, Craerer and Dempsy and Eisenhouwer - whioch was still based in Normandy. The airforce side of Market Garden was run from the UK, which is also where the airborne reserves were. Montgomery was privvy to a lot of secret material and couriers carrying Ultra material could never have been allowed anywhere near German ground forces. Leopoldville is pretty much as close to the corridor as is sensible without putting

    Re #6 To do what? The Coup de Main was going to either succeed or fail. He had no more soldiers to commit. Cancelling part way through would leave paratroops as PW.
     
  6. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    Deleted!
     
  7. nadend

    nadend Member

    I joined this forum to learn something. I have read a few books, but you can't ask a book a question, and expect to get an answer.

    I soon learnt that finding answers to questions on this forum was virtually impossible. Given the limitations of the forum's search engine, it's like 'looking for a needle in a haystack'. So I raised a topic.

    From the very beginning, I have received condescending and abusive replies. I'm not sure what a troll is, but it doesn't sound complementary. I never intended to upset or anger anybody. If I have, I apologise.

    It's apparent that complaining would be useless, and I didn't particularly want to complain anyhow.

    Are all new members treated in the same way? If so, how long do they remain? Do you think there will be any contributors in a few years time? Does anybody care?

    I now wish I had believed that tour guide, that Montgomery did have blood on his hands. At least I would feel better in myself.

    I'm gone. Bye.
     
  8. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    I wouldn't take it personally....Since the dawn of man no one has been able to have a civilised conversation about Arnhem and all things related to it. Feel free to drop into the 1940 section for sensible discussions about all things France and Flanders 1940. Everyone knows that the real back to the wall fighting (sea in this case) during WW2 was in 1940 at Dunkirk. ;)
     
    Owen likes this.
  9. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

    Oh another Arnhem related thread down the shanks
     
  10. Nijmegen

    Nijmegen Member

    Dave's observations were not ludicrous at all (he should of course not have mentioned the non-military aspect of Montgomery, big mistake). I think he wanted to provoke a genuin discussion. You know, with no fixed opinions, and with participants reacting to what is actually said.

    As Drew said, not possible with anything to do with Market Garden, alas. :(
     
    stolpi, Drew5233 and Jonathan Ball like this.
  11. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    *
    I believe you are wrong, I believe he was on the forum just to provoke.

    I do not usually enter Operation Market Garden discussions unless it's to do with 50 Div's involvement and I have no axe to grind with anyone about the subject. I thought there was something amiss with this persons suggestive line of questioning, and acting naive about the subject and then showing a good deal of knowledge.

    Anyway, he didn't take up the challenge to prove his goodwill.

    Best,

    Steve.
     
  12. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    There's nothing to stop anyone continuing the thread if they want to: it's still here.

    I actually wish we could have a few more robust / insightful discussions on here, we don't seem to do them well or often enough. Perhaps it's because we tend too much towards not commenting, for fear of upsetting the atmosphere or even god forbid of being 'proved wrong', etc? It is possible to agree to disagree, to enjoy the cut and thrust for itself.

    This thread: 3 days old, 50 replies, 890 views
    Another thread: 3 days old, 1 reply, 28 views
    Just saying.

    As for choosing to leave - I've also left. And returned. ;)
     
    4jonboy, Jonathan Ball and CL1 like this.
  13. Jonathan Ball

    Jonathan Ball It's a way of life.

    "Detailed planning for 'Market Garden' then started. I know Montgomery learnt about the presence of the remnants of a Panzer division in the Arnhem area sometime before 17th September 1944, one source being ULTRA. I also believe Lieutenant-General Frederick Browning and the Intelligence Officer, Major Brian Urquhart was also informed"

    Dave

    The intelligence about the possibilities of the remnants of a Panzer Division being in the area percolated a lot further down the chain than you may think. The following is a brief extract from an Intelligence Estimate for the 1st Parachute Brigade dated 14 September.

    "A reported concentration ......may represent a battle scarred Pz Div or two reforming, or alternatively the result of emptying the ARNHEM and EDE barracks to make room for fighting troops"

    The author of that report? Captain Willie Taylor who later ended up hiding in the attic at No 14 Zwarteweg with Roy Urquhart and Jimmy Cleminson. I'd like to think your guide took you there?
     
  14. 4jonboy

    4jonboy Daughter of a 56 Recce

    Or the Italian Campaign. The Recce members on here are much more civilised :lol:
     
  15. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    I am a little sorry that "Dave" pushed off. He was obviously interested in Op Market Garden and wanted to share his opinions with others interested, and perhaps knowledgeable about the topic. This is a good forum, which has broughtogether people with an interest in the British and Commonwealth side of WW2 as well some veterans.

    If someone with a genuine interest asks a question they should be taken seriously. It takes some moral courage to risk ridicule to expose one's opinions and limited knowledge. If someone leaves the forum it is no longer possible to persuade them by a force of argument. It is a little rude to decline an offer to read earlier threads. It is discourteous to asking people to repeat arguments that have already been stated in an earlier thread. .

    It isn;lt clear from the posts what exactly he has taken offence at. Perhaps it was the atmosphere akin to a Bateman cartoon perhaps "the subaltern who offered an opinion" amdi red faces and collective harumphing and rustling of Daily Telegraphs from the leather chairs in the anteroom?
     
    smdarby, stolpi and Jonathan Ball like this.
  16. Pak75

    Pak75 Member

    I have been reluctant to post but some members may be interested in this if they have not seen it already.

    Final part of Montgomery's telegram to CIGS Brooke 25 September 1944 M236

    "This fine division has been practically wiped out but by its sacrifice it has ensured operations proceeding successfully elsewhere. The division held the north end of Arnhem bridge for two days and thus prevented enemy reinforcements from getting through towards Nijmegen. Such reinforcements had to go a long way round to the east and cross a ferry and it was this delay to the enemy which enabled us to secure the bridges at Nijmegen and without these we should have been badly placed. The fact that we shall now not (repeat not) now have a crossing of the Neder Rhine will not (repeat not) affect operations eastwards against the Ruhr. In fact by giving up that bridgehead we shall now be able to keep more within ourselves and be less stretched. I shall hold a very strong crossing of the Rhine at Nijmegen."
    CO Tels T.O.O. 2215A
     
    CL1 likes this.
  17. canuck

    canuck Closed Account

    Pure spin. Monty was trying to put lipstick on a pig with that description.
     
  18. smdarby

    smdarby Well-Known Member

    Regarding Dave, I've not been on the forum long myself and I enjoy it here. However, I'd like to point out the reply to the OP which began "and agree with you that you are no expert on all things military." While some of us might find this amusing, I'd suggest that others might find it offensive and patronizing. I think this set the wrong tone for the whole thread. If you want to attract and keep newcomers then don't be so hard on them to start with. Also, phrases like "we on this forum" don't help either. A good way to lose newcomers is to make them feel they are outsiders who have inferior views to an arrogant, know-it-all clique.
     
    Slipdigit, 4jonboy and Owen like this.
  19. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Well said .
    Other members please take note.
     
  20. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Smdarby

    I am the author of the remark to the Op that " I agree that you are no military expert " as a Veteran who was NOT involved in

    the Ahrnem battles but have served on this and the BBC war series for more than 14 years and have studied many aspects of that
    war, and suspected that the Op was merely trying to provoke an argument…and as it has turned out many others - in your terms

    the "arrogant clique" shared my view - and he has left us for the moment as I suspect he will be returning once having given

    the subject much more thought.

    Similarly when you have served for more than a few months - you will find that there are many forum members who are full of

    knowledge which is shared unstintingly to all others for their benefit as the range of subjects is immense bearing in mind

    Owen's stricture that we all take note of your advice re new members…

    Cheers
     

Share This Page