Operation Market Garden, Arnhem, and Montgomery's Role

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

  1. smdarby

    smdarby Well-Known Member

    Hi Tom,

    I'm from Yorkshire and I live in the Netherlands - in both places straight talking has been turned into an art form. Doesn't bother me. However, I'd suggest being more diplomatic might be a good idea when responding to newcomers, since some of them might take offense and get scared off. Just my view. And bear in mind that what you've done in the past, how many posts you've made and how many books you've read doesn't mean a jot to people who have just come to the forum. It's what you do and say in the present that counts.

    Cheers,

    Shaun
     
  2. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Shaun

    Gosh - what good advice - that is what I would usually say in the present- and this is what I also would have said in

    thepast - trouble is that when one reaches the age of 90 - one doesn't give too many damns what younger and more

    "with it " people say…as I am from Scotland and live in Canada

    Cheers
     
  3. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    Interesting view that, Shaun. Newcomers can post messages that are or appear to be offensive, or at the very least tactless and insensitive, but everyone else has to tread on eggshells.

    I'm so insensitive that I sent Dave a PM on Saturday asking him to come back - I didn't have to do it, but I did. I have no idea if he has picked up the PM, either on this forum or via his mobile/iPhone, but I do hope he comes back and continues his work; but only if he is genuine. I even offered to help him, assuming I am able/capable - that may put him off anyway.

    Best,

    Steve.
     
  4. smdarby

    smdarby Well-Known Member

    Why were the OP's messages offensive or insensitive?
     
  5. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    It has all been commented on previously in this thread, Shaun.

    I guess some people see it, others don't and some of those that do see it, don't care. At least four people did see it and did care.

    For my part, I wish I hadn't 'kicked off' but that's all in the past and can't be undone - except to try to hold out an olive branch to Dave, which I have done. I just have to remember this going forward and hold fire/let the Mods sort it out...

    Best,

    Steve.
     
    CL1 and Nijmegen like this.
  6. CL1

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

    post away
     
  7. CL1

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

    Well done Steve
    Hopefully Dave will return and start at 0-0


    regards
    Clive
     
  8. JohnS

    JohnS Senior Member

    I also think that Buckingham's book is worth the read.
     
  9. L J

    L J Senior Member

    I had the intention to read it, but changed my opinion after reading a review : it's the usual blaming of British commanders and ignoring the presence of the enemy . Thus :garbage .
     
  10. arnhem44

    arnhem44 Member

    Hmmm, maybe the truth is "blaming the british commanders for (before hand) ignoring the presence (and active capabilities) of the enemy".

    But that is an ill treat with more commanders. ;)
    I just read an article about how macArthur and his (pro-MacA staff and CIA) ignored and downplayed the presence and first tentative but aggressive attack of Chinese troops at the north border of N-Korea. China supposedly would not dare to attack US troops for USA had the bomb was the common belief.
     
  11. L J

    L J Senior Member

    Should one blame Mac ?

    The indications about a Chinese intervention were downplayed because such an intervention would deprive Mac of his victory against NK and more important : such an intervention would burden US with a war against China:a war it could not win neither lose.
    And,there is also the very important point that this information was useless for Mac :if it was true ,what could he do ? The intervention would happen,even if Mac knew it .

    It is the same for Arnhem : very simpli fied :MG could only succeed if after a few firing,the Germans would throw away their weapons and cry :Kamarad .It was a question of morale . In august,the (not flawed ) assumption in Washington and Whitehall was ;The Hun is on the run.A little push and he will fall and not get up.The risk was that on 15 september the Hun was no more on the run .But it still was worth to try :if MG failed,the Allies lost a division, if MG succeeded, there was a chance that the war would be over by XMas.

    Nothing ventured, nothing gained .

    And the informations ? Not important,because as in Korea, the informations were not usable :if the Germans were stronger than assumed ,what could do Monty ?Everything that was available was committed for MG.
     
    Sheldrake likes this.
  12. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    LJ

    I promised myself to leave this thread but your posting - whilst excellent overall - falls on the last line - "Everything that

    was available was committed for MG "

    Not so according to some accounts as Ike had assured Monty of 100% of all supplies needed - BUT - Patton stamped his foot

    and got enough to carry on his own battle…..so we lost more than one Division…much more…

    Cheers
     
  13. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    I don't think MG failed for want of fuel, buty I think you ave a point. . The decision to adopt a broad front strategy meant that the allied effort was dispersed in a pursuit. As has been posted,OMG could only have succeeded if Germany collapsed. Neither OMG nor Patton's Lorraine campaign did or could have ended the war in 1944. OMG ran into II Panzer Corps and 1 Parachute Army. Patton ran into 5th Panzer Army.

    Montgomery's narrow front strategy might have enabled the allies to clear the Netherlands and establish a bridgehead over the Rhine, but it could not have ended the war in '44. The allies did not have enough troops ashore or the logistic support to conquer Germany.
     
  14. stolpi

    stolpi Well-Known Member

    Actually 5th Pz Army ran into Patton ... from 18 - 29 September 44 the 5th Pz Army, comprizing of two Pz Corps, clashed with Patton's Third Army around Arracourt and suffered tremendous tank losses. A couple of the newly formed German Panzer Brigades were badly mauled. The Germans lost loads of tanks and AFVs in their futile counterattack. From the 262 tanks committed - 75 Pz IV, 107 Pz V Panthers and 80 Stugs - , only 62 were operational after the battle. That's not fuel wasted.

    It also reflects the fact that the Germans were fast regaining their balance after the Normandy defeat and were far from giving up. Instead they were counterattacking. In addition, Hitler and his OKW staff started planning the Ardennes counteroffensive from 16 Sept onwards.
     
  15. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    Actually 5th Pz Army ran into Patton ... from 18 - 29 September 44 the 5th Pz Army, comprizing of two Pz Corps, clashed with Patton's Third Army around Arracourt and suffered tremendous tank losses. A couple of the newly formed German Panzer Brigades were badly mauled. The Germans lost loads of tanks and AFVs in their futile counterattack. From the 262 tanks committed - 75 Pz IV, 107 Pz V Panthers and 80 Stugs - , only 62 were operational after the battle. That's not fuel wasted.

    It also reflects the fact that the Germans were fast regaining their balance after the Normandy defeat and were far from giving up. Instead they were counterattacking. In addition, Hitler and his OKW staff started planning the Ardennes counteroffensive from 16 Sept onwards.

    Agreed. The Germans planed to mount a counter stroke against the Allies when they were logistically extended in the same way they had done so against the Russians on several occasions. While these successes burnish Paton;s claim to greatness, the credit for the successful battles around Arracourt are tto the telented tactical leadership withjin thje 4th Armoured Division. It is also worth noting that 3rd Army casualties were around 30,000. This was not a walk over and in other places the 3trg PG Division disched a bloody nose to one river crossing.

    It does not invalidate my point. Regardless of who was doing the attacking the Germans had assembled an armoured force to oppose Patton. The planning discussions in late Aug and the 1st week of Sep calling for a charge to Berlin, the capture of the Ruhr or even Rhine bridgeheads all presupposed a German collapse. This was probably never on, as the Germans were able to restore a coherent front.

    The plans for Overlord always assumed that there would be a logistic pause before assembling the troops needed to defeat Germany. The fact that this pause took place on the Rhine and Maas rather than on the Seine and Loire illustrates the success of the Normandy campaign.
     
  16. stolpi

    stolpi Well-Known Member

    It was not my intention to invalidate your point, on the contrary (as usual) you made quite a good point :). When they decided to cross the Seine and take up the pursuit the Allies very well knew that at some point they would outrun their logistics. But they rather took the risk than stop the advance for a logistic pause, now that they had the enemy on the run.
     
  17. L J

    L J Senior Member

    The fact that resources were given to Patton,does not prove that these resources could be given to MG .After all,it is a big distance between the Saar and Arnhem,and MG was in a hurry
     
  18. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    LJ
    No matter the distance anywhere - you agree that resources were in fact given to Patton when they had been PROMISED to MG…

    cheers
     

Share This Page