|
Posts:
5,573
Registered:
9/19/99
|
|
(1 of 100)
Sep 17, 2009 8:14 PM
|
|
September 17, 1944 Operation Market Garden begins. Allied forces launch a massive joint land and airborne attempt to secure a bridgehead over the Rhine River. Over 1500 planes and 500 gliders drop elements of three airborne divisions into Holland in an attempt to capture a corridor leading from Eindhoven to Arnhem that crosses five water bodies including two major river bridges. The initial landings are a great success. Two of the bridges were captured intact (at Veghel by the US 101st Airborne Division and at Grave by the US 82nd Airborne) The bridge at Son (101st) was destroyed before it was secured. The major river bridges over the Waal at Nijmegen (82nd Airborne) and the Rhine at Arnhem (1st British Airborne) were not secured. The operation has been called everything from a total disaster to a moderate success. Critics have blamed high-level pressures, both military and civilian (political), for Ike's agreement to the plan. Was it possible for a field commander to resist such pressures when one of his two immediate subordinates formulated the plan? And did Monty go over Ike's head to get such pressure applied?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,397
From:
Stockport UK
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(2 of 100)
Sep 18, 2009 5:37 AM
|
. The operation has
> been called everything from a total disaster to a
> moderate success. Critics have blamed high-level
> pressures, both military and civilian (political),
> for Ike's agreement to the plan.
Ike liked the plan, it made use of troops that were otherwise unoccupied, and it gave the chance of continuing the advance into Germany without too much strain on the logistics.
Was it possible for
> a field commander to resist such pressures when one
> of his two immediate subordinates formulated the
> plan?
It was the job of his immediate subordinates to go to him with various plans, not all would be selected, and they knew this.
And did Monty go over Ike's head to get such
> pressure applied?
Ike never claimed he did, and there is no evidence that he did.
--
If in doubt..... Panic !!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,623
From:
Utica, IL
Registered:
5/5/08
|
|
(3 of 100)
Sep 18, 2009 4:05 PM
|
Dear P2 and Red,
Come on over to Market Garden plus 65 Years; we have some issues that your insight would be useful to explore.
TH
|
|
|
Posts:
2,610
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(4 of 100)
Sep 18, 2009 4:23 PM
|
|
Marshall would have never tolerated an end around and due to the nature of the plan Im sure both the British and American staff were in the loop.
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
California
Registered:
8/26/09
|
|
(5 of 100)
Sep 19, 2009 9:12 PM
|
|
The entire Market Garden strategy was flawed from the beginning. It assumed that the German military and civilian population would collapse. This long narrow corridor through Holland never had a chance. The planners didn't seem to think about FLANK protection. Another example of stupidity at the top!
|
|
|
Posts:
505
Registered:
7/1/09
|
|
(6 of 100)
Sep 20, 2009 5:29 PM
|
> The entire Market Garden strategy was flawed from the
> beginning. It assumed that the German military and
> civilian population would collapse. This long narrow
> corridor through Holland never had a chance. The
> planners didn't seem to think about FLANK protection.
> Another example of stupidity at the top!
Another main flaw according British historian David Irving was that this was a very agressive plan and needed agressive leadership and men to accomplish it.....That was not what the Brits were known for.....Irving postulated that the American army would have had a better chance of making it work.......He also said that the US beachs on D-Day should have been switched with the British so that the more mobile US army would have been posed to break out from Normandy and would have been already closer to Paris.....As it was, the Americans had to go a lot farther.
|
|
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
10/7/04
|
|
(7 of 100)
Sep 20, 2009 6:08 PM
|
I am glad you set such store by Irving.
Here are more of his views
In sharp contrast with the picture long held up to us of American GIs being welcomed by a grateful French populace, Irving is one of several historians who are casting new light on these events. It seems that far from acting like Boy Scouts out on a mission of mercy, American soldiers terrorized many of the people they were supposed to be liberating from the clutches of the nasty Nazis. As Irving informs his readers: "An ordeal began for the French who stayed behind in Normandy to welcome their liberators. They were liable to be vandalized, robbed, raped, murdered. Indeed, the behavior of GIs throughout liberated Europe was causing apprehension in Washington.
--
14 Carriers
8 Battleships
17 Cruisers
81 Destroyers
1,200 Aircraft
to sink ONE Japanese Battleship.
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
California
Registered:
8/26/09
|
|
(8 of 100)
Sep 20, 2009 6:21 PM
|
FIW: This is speculation on my Part:
I think that Monty wanted to make a big name for himself. He presented his great plan of Market Garden to IKE. Ike had some serious reservations but Monty was persistent. Ike was known to give in under pressure so he said. O.K. Monty, go ahead but it will be the the British paratroopers who will be dropped the very deepest inside Holland. The tragic end result was that the Brits lost their very best combat men!
PS: I'm going on a 10 day vacation(holliday) so as Nixon once said, "You wont have me to kick around anymore." something like that.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,057
Registered:
2/15/03
|
|
(9 of 100)
Sep 20, 2009 7:18 PM
|
ENJOY YOUR TEN DAY VACATION VET-but Montgomery had already made his name in North Africa LONG before ''Operation Market Garden'' took place.
Wuithn the benifit of 20/20 perfect vision thst ccomes with hindsight of course Market Garden ''was overly ambitious, poorly planned i.e the radio fiasco, and foolhardy as British commanders knew but chose to ignore the presecence of 2nd S.S. Panzer division..iT'S AIMS WERE LAUDABLE but its execution much less so.
Isuppose from a British para perspective Arnhem was the equivalent of the Crete 1941 where casulaties meant that never again did German Fallschrimjaeger make a major airborne strike against the allies.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,610
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(10 of 100)
Sep 20, 2009 7:32 PM
|
|
If irving had any credibility, his views might be taken serious. However since he has only credibility among neo's and not among other historians, his comments are not worth anything Can you provide any evidence what so ever of such crimes being the norm rather then the exception
|
|
|
Posts:
12
From:
FL
Registered:
9/11/09
|
|
(11 of 100)
Sep 26, 2009 3:58 PM
|
I think the plan was so bold and audacious, that Ike figured
it might just work. I also think, Great Britain has suffered a lot, from the war and Ike thought, they should be given the chance to make a big contribution to winning the war.
I bet the stories about flawed intelligence, have some truth to them. The aeiral photos of the Panzers were destroyed, so nobody would ever know they excited.
The 3rd thing is I believe, Ike wanted to slow down Patton.
Keep some of the glory for himself and his future presidental campaign.
|
|
|
Posts:
505
Registered:
7/1/09
|
|
(12 of 100)
Sep 27, 2009 12:29 AM
|
> I think the plan was so bold and audacious, that Ike
> figured
> it might just work. I also think, Great Britain has
> suffered a lot, from the war and Ike thought, they
> should be given the chance to make a big contribution
> to winning the war.
>
> I bet the stories about flawed intelligence, have
> some truth to them. The aeiral photos of the Panzers
> were destroyed, so nobody would ever know they
> excited.
>
> The 3rd thing is I believe, Ike wanted to slow down
> Patton.
> Keep some of the glory for himself and his future
> presidental campaign.
I don't see how letting the British get credit for ending the war helps Ike's political career....I think it would do just the opposite. After all, the battle for Normandy had just ended and two out of every three Allied casualties were American.
What I think is that Ike was a known Anglophile and he wanted the Brits to love him. He kissed up to them constantly at the expense of American soldiers. The irony was that Ike was very kind to Montgomery in his memoirs and expected the same from Monty....But Monty, true to form, stabbed Ike in the back...Ike was crushed....He deserved it for being such sycophant.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,344
Registered:
2/27/03
|
|
(13 of 100)
Sep 28, 2009 6:59 AM
|
Eisenhower made a point of treating the British as equal partners - like having their own army group for just 14-16 British, Canadian, and Polish divisions - but that's not the same as giving them priority.
In September 1944 the Allied advance was faltering due to outrunning its supply capabilities. They appreciated that the Germans were frantically regrouping as the battle approached the Reich and that resistance would soon stiffen. So there was a "race against time" feeling that made attractive an innovative strategy to keep the advance going.
There was also a strong desire to use the new airborne army. The airborne divisions had not been pulled out of combat in Normandy just to rest; they were preparing for new operations. An airborne operation offered the equivalent of a corps advance sixty miles into enemy territory without consuming any of the too-scarce transport and supply resources available on the Continent. The range of transports and gliders based in England dictated that such an operation would be in the north, 21st Army Group's sector.
Each commander rightly focussed on his own sector. It was not Montgomery's job to assess the benefits of giving priority to Patton, or vice versa.
Eisenhower was the one who insisted - rightly - on having Patton on the team despite the slapping and other incidents, so I doubt he would have deliberately sabotaged his efforts.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,025
From:
Britain
Registered:
9/18/07
|
|
(14 of 100)
Sep 28, 2009 11:05 AM
|
From memory quite a few airborne drops had already been cancelled (five or seven seems correct?) and there was pressure to justify the expensive airborne troops who were not performing any function when formations were all calling out for men.
It was a reasonable gamble to end the war quickly, nothing else offered this and the losses from prolonging the war would be far greater than the loss of the entire airborne army.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,374
Registered:
5/17/03
|
|
(15 of 100)
Sep 28, 2009 6:06 PM
|
|
I began to read Spade's post until I arrived at the line ''according British historian David Irving''!
|
|
|
|
|
