Was it really necessary to go to Arnhem during OMG?

I have a question as an aside...

Why did the powers that be not put the kibosh on M-G in it's entirety in favour of opening the port at Antwerp?
What was the overwhelming reason that put a stop to this?

Its known fact that the allies had supply problems and a serious and still ongoig port facility lackage.

Obtaining Antwerp would have been the best avenue to expedite the war on the western front. Right?

 

POST-NEPTUNE, COURSES OF ACTION AFTER CAPTURE OF LODGEMENT AREA, SECTION I: MAIN OBJECTIVE AND AXIS OF ADVANCE, a SHAEF study, designated the Ruhr Area as the key objective.

 

True, but does not answer the question.
The powers that be dealing with supply and sevice could have directed Shaef to do elsewise.


The Antwerp inlet was well armed and defended but in the end it remained a relatively small axis force to deal with.

I have always wondered what the definitive reason was for not opening the port ASAP.

 

A reason not to do with Monty's personality profile.


Apologies... Trying to learn how to use a smart phone here...
Can't seem to get the ''edit'' function to wrk...

 

Another consideration: V2

 

Steelers

I don't have problems with any non Veterans as I do realise the accidents of birth from as far back as Adam and Eve etc

what I do have problems with is that - as you say you have 7000 books and no doubt you have had time to read them all- some

of us Veterans also have books which we read and apply to our own experiences and come to a better realization of what went

on in many battles. Case in point is the battle for Ahrnem of 17th September 1944 - a Sunday as I recall many times in a

month even to-day why …?

I was laying wounded on a battlefield damn near all day tending my gunner who was even worse than I - we were then picked up
after dark and I spent the following six months in hospitals being patched to be thrown back again to fight some more -

which gave me time to reflect followed in retirement by studying what went on during the war so I also know something

about it…

Now if you have been following this thread from the beginning - you will note that once I learned of Ben's youth - I

immediately apologized for my comment ..BUT……that didn't stop some people such as yourself telling me that I am full of beans

and don't what I'm talking about….so a word of advice - Knock it off

My battlefield of 17th Sep '44 was near San Martino in the Gothic Line of Northern Italywhich you can read about in the BBC series below

 

Fred

From my reading of that problem regarding Antwerp- when Ike agreed to Monty's plan for Ahrnem he also guaranteed Monty 100%

supplies - so little need to open Antwerp - then Patton stamped his foot and Ike gave him 50% of Monty's 100% supplies- but hey -
what do I know…

Cheers

 

Market Garden was a product of Montgomery, IMHO.
On Sept 1 Eisenhower assumed control of all land forces in NWE, much to Monty's anger and disgust. By this time the American generals were fed up with Monty and little wonder any post Sept 1 Monty directives were ignored.
Then began the debate about a broad front or a concentrated effort, with Montgomery and Eisenhower again taking opposite views.
Montgomery came up with MG as a potentially war winning plan (or at least war shortening) to prove Eisenhower wrong. It was ambitious and far removed from his preferred battle plans of accumulating superior numbers of troops and artillery for a set piece battle (eg Alamein) to 'crumble' the enemy. The seizure of the Arnhem bridge would eliminate the need for a future crossing of the Rhine which was bound to be a difficult operation. However, Eisenhower supported the plan and American paratroopers were also deployed.
It was a gamble - but ultimately a losing one as bad weather, poor planning and strong German resistance conspired to produce the result we all know.

So were the heavy airborne and XXX Corps casualties worth the gamble? As the operation was unsuccessful, history would say not. But if it had been successful, we would be celebrating MG today.

 

As Jonathan Ball mentioned: Formally, the aim of Market Garden was to cut forces west of Arnhem (and thereby eliminate the V2 menace, as mentioned by Idler).

 

Hello Ben,

Monty's preference was to cross the Rhine at Wesel (which he eventually did) but, the RAF refused over concern about heavy German defences and aircraft/aircrew losses. Monty continued to argue for Wesel but, at around this time, there was a request from Monty's political masters in the UK that he should do all he can to negate the threat from German 'V' weapons, which had become a nuisance to/in SE England. Thereafter, all bets were off, Monty adjusted his plans and headed for Arnhem.

It is true that Eisenhower and the Americans generally, favoured a 'broad front' strategy and Monty preferred to 'concentrate' effort via a single thrust and this did get him into a lot of bother with the Americans. However, Eisenhower was very taken with Op. Market Garden because, if successful, it would have shortened the war substantially. There was no argument between the two about this operation. That is why they put this operation ahead of clearing Antwerp, which was also becoming a major priority.

I can dig out the appropriate authorities for the foregoing if you require them, albeit it may take me some time - old reading...

Please distrust any reading that revolves around Monty's personality, the fact is he was a professional and successful General (and later, Field Marshall) and the 'personality' argument is used by those who have an axe to grind. For example, I've worked with people who had difficult or irritating personalities, it didn't stop me admiring their ability or respecting them.

I tend to speak as I find, so, as for Tom's comments and the corresponding criticism of them, Tom has always been very supportive of me and I am not a WWII veteran. I may not always agree with him, but when he says something I listen and learn.

Good luck with your research.

Best,

Steve.

 

As with every thread, forum members will ask questions ,some old and some new.
The forum is about information and learning and keeping the history alive.

We all have different expertise to bring in some form or another.

All I can suggest is keep asking the questions and keep supplying the answers.
Listen and learn and put your thoughts,questions and answers in.
We don't always agree but try to make sure it stays on track with sensible debate.

 

Tom,

The original post did not deserve your initial reply, wippy dee that you later apologized, but the OP asked a valid question and it didn't matter whether he was 14 or a 114. Not everyone has access to lots of books, the internet is sketchy at best, so if you don't know a lot about a subject where better to ask a question relating to WWII than a WWII forum.

I'd like you to point out where in any of my posts I've said you were full of beans and didn't know what you were talking about, all I've said is that it's important when studying history to know the 'why' as well as the 'what' happened so therefore I won't be taking your advice to Knock it off.

Thx to Steve Mac for actually answering the OP question.

 

Steelers

I cannot point out any posting where you said that I was full of beans - or anything else as you are well aware as I was

writing generally as you are perhaps aware that some members think of us Veterans as ignorant of the "BIG PICTURE"

forgetting that we too have read books and have extensive libraries and coupled with our experiences - make us valid

correspondents on any forum notwithstanding the odd lapse of temper and annoyance with the odd question…this can be

put down to advanced age in most cases …

Cheers Tom Canning M.B.A.

 

Hello again, Ben,

Further to my previous Message # 30, I have found one authority for my comments concerning Wesel v Arnhem, in 'The Lonely Leader, Monty 1944-1945' Alistair Horne:

*
and another from the words of Monty himself - 'The Memoirs Of Field-Marshall Montgomery':

*
The words in square brackets are mine...

Best,

Steve.