Talk:Operation Market Garden/Archive 1

the radios and "iron ore"

The speculation here may be true--but the supporting article is so poorly documented that it has zero credibility for me--like a bad episode of "Myth Busters". The problems with the radios was a major obstacle--to debunk it, even partly, with this fluff is not credible. Nothing, for instances, addresses other logical questions--The Germans were able to coordinate--how did they do it? Does Arnhem have no TV or radio/wireless? Are there problems with broadcast too? If not, why just the VHF radios? Does their police force, fire departments, etc have the same problems? The article deserves better than what is there now. --Buckboard 08:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What's really odd is that the radios miraculously started working several days in, at least according to the article. Did someone magically get rid of all the iron ore or does the cause of the radio failure really lie elsewhere? DMorpheus 00:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't it be that the radios of the British at Arnhem were put to work later on, simply because they were able to contact allied sites in the American landing zones which were of course much closer to them?

So far as I am aware the Dutch police and military have problems with radio communication in the area to this day, though there were also problems with the British radios being frankly not very good and optimized for desert use. The greater success of the British radios later on was mostly due to some inventive arrangement of impromptu new antenna, I seem to remember one establishment of contact coming after they hung a wire from a high chimney for example. Sadly I cannot provide references for this as it is information obtained when I was in the army and we visited the area with several veteran senior officers to go over the mistakes and successes of the operation.

Operation Priority!

Why in the world does it say that 'several weeks prior to the operation', the port of Antwerp was taken? Isn't that complete BS as Antwerp only fell during the Battle of the Scheldt, immediately after Market Garden?

The article is accurate. The port of Antwerp was taken, intact and without a fight, prior to M-G. The intro to the article describes the dilemma the Allies then faced: Either immediately take the Scheldt so as to get the port into operation, or gamble that the Ruhr could be entered before the supply situation deteriorated further. Unfortunately the gamble was lost; the supply crisis continued; Antwerp did not unload an allied supply ship until November. It must be said the supply crisis had several causes - having Antwerp closed wasn't the only fault in the logistics system. DMorpheus 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Improvements needed!

Uh.....should this be featured in its present state? Much good info, but the entire tone is very chatty and loose, especially in the conclusion -- it feels far more like an essay/opinion piece towards the end than a neutral encyclopedia article. Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At the very least, it needs a 'commander/date/stuff table' a picture! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Language still needs maturation. It not only still reads "chatty and loose" ("desperately" "staggeringly" etc.) but it sounds almost as if it were written while watching the movie version, IMHO. --Buckboard 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's not completely accurate either. I have started some (hopefully) improvements and welcome help. DMorpheus 21:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

220.227.165.120 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC) German Forces, 3rd para "Finally, an unfortunate coincidence had resulted...". Should the term 'unfortunate' be used here? Unfortunate for the allies, maybe. Not for the Germans. How does NPOV rule on this?

yeah, I noticed as well - I deleted it (shortly I thought of writing "a unforseen coincidence" - but then agian all coincidences are unforseen, otherwise they would not be that... --Albert Cuandero 20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

pictures

Pictures are really needed for this page ... especially maps and diagrams and the ones of hundreds of paratroopers coming down onto the bridge. LUDRAMAN | T 21:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Listed on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates

Comment on that page. --mav 00:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Having read Ryan's book, I am sufficiently motivated to fix this article in order to have its FA status renewed. Which other major sources of info does anyone have to recommend? Pcb21| Pete 19:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

nvm=

I thought I found possible vandalism Lotsofissues 07:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, XXX Corps on highway 69 gave me a smile, anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Primadonna Generals

Isn't that a bit POV? Tfine80 8 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Its not even accurate. Mongomery was a Field Marshall and the Canadian First Army was part of his 21st Army Group so that statement is saying he was competing with himself for supplies. Omar Bradley was Mongomery's opposite number in the U.S. 12th Army Group. Patton was one of Bradleys subordinates.

'Clearly the primary concern for the Allies should have been the advance of the Canadian army to remove the remaining German forces from the area and open Antwerp.' is hardly a masterpiece of NPOV either. Perhaps in hindsight this is arguable but the whole reason for the attack was that German resistance appeared to have collapsed.

This article has many other factually dubious and/or POV statements. It could do with editing. I might have a go once I dig some of my books out. --Shimbo 9 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

That paragraph jumped off the page when I read it, too. Certainly not NPOV. puskarm 18 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

The ferry at Driel

The article says two things about the ferry at Driel :

""" Day 5: ... The situation north of the river was obviously too hostile to land, so a new drop zone on the south side across from the 1st was selected near the village of Driel. The landings went well, but the ferry they planned to use to reach the British had been sunk. Their force was largely wasted as a result.

And :

""" In fact, had the Market Garden planners realized that a ferry was available at Driel, Frost's paratroops might well have secured that instead of the Arnhem bridge, making a profound difference in the campaign.

In fact Driel was not an option at all actually, or had the ferry been sunk by the german forces after day 1?

From memory, the ferry was sunk about the fourth day by its owner who thought that the Germans were going to use it. Later Driel was the only option not because of the (sunken) ferry but because it was the only place near Oosterbeck where a road went all the way to the river. If the equipment had been available then the engineers could have built a bridge there so the British armour could get across and relieve the paratroopers.--Shimbo 13:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Casualties

In the section "Conclusions/casualties", I'm having a hard time making sense of how the numbers are supposed to add up (specifically the American 'Grand Total'). Anyone know what they should read? Istvan 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Uff.. i took me many time to get it. it seams that many contributors have add the correct number of american KIA. But in the grand total casualties figure thay have just rounded up the figure. But someone must sum the wounded and the POW casualties to the total.

I'm confused the casualty table. Why are some of the cells blank (e.g., British WIA) whereas other cells have "unknown". It seems that all the cells should have values or "unknown". Also, the way the grand total column works is awkward and should probably be revised. Is there a reason the numbers have blanks instead of comma thousand separators? --Toms2866 22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am confused too the table itself is a mess. This have been comented before, many times. Note: Acording to Operation Market Garden by Stephen Badsey the casuaties seccion (page 85) tells:

".............giving a total of 16,805 Allied Casualties. German Casualties like his units strenghts,cannot be accuratelly given for this period of the war. Generalmarshall Model estimated Army Group B casualties in Market Garden at 3,300 but others calculations place them high as 2,000 dead and 6,000 wounded........"

So i will change the battlebox error there, iam announcing it now before doing the change. If you have any reply, feel free to talk it here. Miguel

The current number of German casualties (4000-8000) seems quite low to me. I often read casualty figures even higher than those of the allies. As far as I know, the British paratroopers, particulary those defending the northern end of the Arnhem bridge, sold their lives at rather steep prices, and German attacks from the Reichswald were repulsed by American paratroopers, with reportedly also serious losses. Could it be that allied casualties are given for both the battles of the airheads AND the battle for the road leading to Arnhem, while German casualties list only eitehr of those? This seems to happen on occassions (the battle of Kursk seems a likely candidate). thestor 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Axis and Allies often inflated enemy casualties and minimized their own looses. Modell put the number of their casualties at 3,000. The allies put their number of losses at 17,800.

Of course German casualties looks lowered but the figure of 4k - 8k is a number estimated by historians.

The other problem with this world war 2 articles are the great influence of lies inflated numbers and movies crappy kill ratio of 1-6 in favour of the allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.244 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 March 2007

More inline citations

Old FARC comments have been addressed (battlebox, pictures) - and in order for this article to improve, Wikipedia:Inline citations would be much needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Additions to Article?

No Mention of the bridge not surviving the war, or the fact that the replacement bridge was named for Col. Frost. Also of interest, that Arnhem was liberated by the Canadian Army. There is also an Airborne museum in Arnhem that focuses on the battle.

Might any of this be worth adding?

Motorfix 01:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I think the article on Frost mentions the bridge naming but that is not to say it shouldn't be here also. DMorpheus 17:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Move to different section of Article

"quote:In fact, with the failure at Arnhem, the battle merely produced a salient leading nowhere. Elite Allied Airborne units took heavy losses holding open the salient over the next month. Months later, 21st Army Group was fighting only a few miles away in the Reichswald. "

I don't feel this belongs under Legacy. Perhaps elsewhere in the Article but not here.

Motorfix 19:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, even though I put it there originally, it would fit elsewhere better. I wanted to include the often-forgotten fact that the US Airborne Divisions stayed in the line, holding a useless salient, taking fairly heavy casualties for no purpose. DMorpheus 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the points that the salient was held and that this lead to heavy casualties (heavier than Market Garden itself I believe) are valid, although this was not strictly part of 'Operation Market Garden' which is what this article is about. Perhaps it would be better in The Netherlands in World War II or US 82nd Airborne division. However I don't agree with the interpretation you make. The salient didn't 'lead nowhere' - it was a substantial part of the Netherlands. The occupied territory was used as a base for further operations to liberate the Netherlands, so it wasn't 'useless' and defending it didn't have 'no purpose' unless you think liberating the Netherlands from Nazi occupation was pointless. Shimbo 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that it wasn't a part of Market-Garden - that's why it was in the 'Legacy' section, although perhaps it should have been in some sort of 'conclusion' or 'aftermath' section instead. It's common (and useful IMO) in wiki articles to say a word or two about the aftereffects of a major operation.

Obviously liberating the Netherlands from fascism was not useless, but there are many ways available to do that. Winning the war quickly was the best way, so, to the extent that the failure of M-G meant that other, better opportunities were given up, the salient was actually worse than useless. The existence of the salient doubled the frontage of the 21st Army Group with obvious effects on their ability to mass forces anywhere. The wastage of two top-quality Airborne divisions was a direct effect of this doubling of the frontage. DMorpheus 20:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You may well be right, my point is that it is debatable and hence POV. It's not right to put "holding the salient was pointless" in the article as a fact, there should be reference to a source expressing that POV. The Band of Brother book has a chapter on the post Market Garden battles - there might be something in there. Shimbo 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Eisenhower's Lieutenants makes the case that it was actually counterproductive, in much stronger terms than I have stated here. It gets into much more detail, of course, but basically argues that several other options were available and that the choice of M-G precluded those (the opportunity cost). The additional frontage for 21st Army Group made all their operations much more difficult. They couldn't even hold on to what they had taken without keeping two Airborne divisions in the line in deliberate defensive positions, which is something Airborne units are not equipped to do. Band Of Brothers is useful in showing the tactical-level effects of that decision. Since Airborne Divisions lacked any medium or heavy artillery, they constantly took a beating from German artillery. A regular US Infantry Division had 50-odd tubes of 105mm and 155mm howitzer support, plus Corps heavy batteries; an Airborne Div had only 75mm pack howitzers. I'm not just making this up ;) and yeah, I should have cited the source ;) DMorpheus 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A few observations: The objective of Market Garden was not to create a salient. The salient itself, may or may not have been wasteful and counter productive, but at this point in the war, they would not have willingly surrendered ground to the Germans. It would have been political suicide to give up ground gained in Market Garden. The order of the day, would be to hold. Eisenhower himself had the power to make changes, and he didn't. The comments in his book are written after the fact.

Motorfix 15:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was unclear - Eisenhower didn't write Eisenhower's Lieutenants. You're right that it would have been politically impossible to give up the ground liberated from the Nazis (the case of Strasbourg proves this, I think), but in a purely military sense it has been argued in that book that the results of M-G were counterproductive.

You're also correct that the objective was not to take a salient (useful or not) but to get 21st Army Group over the Rhine, outflank the west wall, and penetrate into Germany; ultimately to get to the Ruhr area. Since none of those objectives were gained, it was disengenuous of Montgomery to claim "90% success" for the operation.DMorpheus 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you there. Cheers, Motorfix 19:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree too, the article will be stronger with a quote from Eisenhower's Lieutenants to contrast with Montgomery's statement. Shimbo 20:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination feedback

I removed this from the nominations list, because at 51kb I feel it's too long for one person to be able to review it effectively, and it's likely to sit there for weeks waiting for someone to tackle it. I see from its FA removal that all that was considered wrong with it was the lack of infobox and references. As it has both of these now, I'd suggest seeking peer review and then taking it back to WP:FA. Worldtraveller 19:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Siegfried Line Picture

I don't see the relevence of this recent addition, especially as this article is already over the recomended size.Shimbo 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On a strategic level it's very relevant. The objective of M-G was to bypass the siegfried line and cross into the Ruhr without having to assault the fortifications. Other Allied forces (e.g. US 5th Armored Div) were already penetrating the line, so the strategic significance is that other opportunities to get through the line and into Germany were lost due to the priority assigned to M-G. DMorpheus 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tactical Airpower "decisive"?

This is in the article:

This was a tragedy as this was the 1st Airborne's only link with the swarms of RAF fighter-bombers circling overhead, whose support in the coming days could have been decisive, but they could not now be directed against targets on the ground. The pilots were under orders not to attack on their own initiative, which was sadly as essential order given the unpredictable nature of airborne warfare, with no particular front line and so no easy means of distinguishing friend from foe.

My problem with this is - has tactical airpower ever been decisive in a Second World War battle? Can anyone give an example of close air support turning the tide of a tactical battle? I don't believe this is accurate and should be removed from the article - the fighter bombers may have had an operational effect on reinforcements, etc, but tactically I don't see how they could have been "decisive" since they never were in any other battle.Michael Dorosh 04:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For lightly armed airborne troops with no artillery support facing armored opposition, having CAS certainly would have helpful in Arnhem. The inability for ground forces to direct the aerial resupply was also a major problem. Would ground-direction of aerial assets proved decisive in Arnhem? That's speculation - the British airborne was in deep trouble against unexpected Panzer units. I think ...could have been decisive is reasonable wording. In this particular context, decisive means: could the Arnhem forces held out for several more days until XXX arrived? Perhaps. There are some examples of WWII CAS that were decisive, or at least major factors. During the invasion of Italy, Allied CAS by the Nortwest African Air Forces (NAAF) played a major role in several instances, including a decisive repulsion of a counter-attack by Panzer divisions and delay of German reinforcements. German CAS (esp. Stuka dive bombers) was a major (but not decisive) factor during the Blitzkrieg as German ground forces advanced far ahead of artillery support. Eisenhower stated that had the Germans possessed aerial superiority, it may have been decisive in Normandy - a reasonable opinion given the concentration of Allied traffic from the beachheads. But your point is well taken - ground forces generally decided ground battles in WWII. Much of the tactical airpower (on both sides) was spent against the opponent's tactical airpower in the battle to own the skies. Once the aerial contest was decided in a particular area, usually the issue on the ground was already apparent. Once the Allies owned the skies after June 1944 (and thus tactical air power was fully available for CAS), most ground issues were predestined anyway or weather negated Allied CAS (e.g., bulge). Just my opinions - I'd like to hear other opinions. --Toms2866 15:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WW2 fighter-bombers rarely had much success destroying tanks, despite claims to the contrary. They just did not have accurate-enough weapons systems. What they excelled at was isolation of the battlefield, as you have both said. For example, in Normandy, Allied tactical air so limited German mobility that they could not reinforce over land as fast as the allies could reinforce over open beaches. That was quite an accomplishment.

Could they have played a similar interdiction role in M-G? I don't see why not, despite lack of radio contact. After all, any truck they saw in Arnhem was German wasn't it? All roads north of the Rhine were open hunting areas. The problem was more complex south of Arnhem, but this edit concerns Arnhem itself.

Combat in cities is at *very* close range, so the idea that CAS could have intervened directly in the battle is, I think, optimistic. Look at Stalingrad - the 62nd Army deliberately adopted a tactic of 'hugging' the Germans (staying at very close range) so as to prevent the German air support and artillery support from being effective.

I would therefore vote with Dorosh that the edit does not make a lot of sense, for two reasons. One, the lack of radio contact didn't prevent the CAS from doing any of the things it could have done; perfect radio contact would not have enabled them to destroy German AFVs. The 1st Airborne committed lots of much bigger mistakes so singling out the radios-CAS issue doesn't make much sense to me. Two, as noted above, it is speculation and thus original research that does not belong here.

DMorpheus 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should soften the emphasis on fighter-bomber close air support. The following passages from Christopher Hibbert's book Arnhem (ISBN 1842127276) may be useful references:

The official German explanation for the British defeat were that the landings were insufficiently concentrated; that Allied Intelligence was apparently unaware of the presence of II Panzer Korps in the area northeast of Arnhem; that bad flying conditions not only prevented the resupply and reinforcement of the Allied troops but also prevented the break-up of German supply and reinforcement columns moving towards the battle area; and, finally, that the British Airborne Division landed too far in advance of the 2nd Army's front and could not be expected to hold out for the time it would take before the tanks of XXX Corps were able to reach the Neder Rijn. pp225

He goes on to elaborate on these and other points. With regard specifically to air support, Hibbert has this to say:

But if the hundreds of tons of supplies, which despite the weather were dropped over the Arnhem area, had fallen into British hands and if the method of summoning close air support had not been limited to two unserviceable wireless sets the British Division might even so have survived. pp229

Perhaps these passages can suggest an appropriate perspective with regard to air support over Arnhem.--Toms2866 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In Cornelius Ryan's "A bridge too far" I read that the RAF refused to carry out CAS for the British airborne troops without clearly outlined plans, which were virtually impossible to make int he fluid situation. Basically, Ryan claimed I think, that the Urquhart wanted the RAF to fly over the battlefield and bomb up the Germans on opportunity, while the RAF feared to hit their own troops, does anyone have something on that?

As for the power of tactical airpower, I think during 1940, a French counterattack (led by deGaulle?) was largely foiled by German Stukas. And one can only guess how many ground offenses were killed by tactical airpower that would OTHERWISE have broken through the lines. How many battles were actually DECIDED by artillery? Virtually impossible to tell, but probably many, as artillery was the main killer of the world wars if I am informed correctly. Thestor 17:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)thestor

This entire article has a dearth of information about the air portion of the operation--the drops, the resupply efforts in combat, fighter support, German fighter reaction to resupply. All of the above arguments about whether air support was "decisive" or not are simply debate, not definitive. The XIX Tactical Air Command protected Patton's right flank on the dash across France, which was pretty "decisive" for the Third Army, if not "decisive" in broader terms. Market would never have been attempted without a decided Allied superiority in the air. The fact is the weather was lousy almost immediately and was a "decisive" factor in the aerial results or lack thereof. Airpower was not "decisive" in any particular engagement or campaign per se, but the Allied armies could not have won without it. Its absence in M-G should be mentioned as a factor, but not the factor, in the defeat--Buckboard 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit - "too editorialized"

The latest addition reads fine, Mark. Looking good. Thanks for adding so much useful info to the article!Michael Dorosh 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Communications

I think that the article should mention something about how the troops in Arnhem could have just used the phones in the houses, as mentioned in A Bridge too far.Defy You 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

They did, and it does (unless someone edited it out), the first communication Urquart and Frost had was via public telephone. DMorpheus 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only after some DAYS if I remmeber correctly. Hadn't the Brtish not been told not to trust the Dutch at all, they might have made HQ aware of their precarious situation sooner, though one is left to wonder what could have been done. Though at the very least, the following supply missions could have been relocated to less contested areas. thestor 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Bernhard Quote

Is such a flippant comment necessary? I realise that it acts as a balance to Montgomery's quote, but wouldn't it be better to explain that Montgomery actually admitting to a mistake is far more damning than anything a controversial member of the Dutch monarchy could offer? --Harlsbottom 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep it and let the reader decide whether or to what extent it is flippant. I myself find it poignant. DMorpheus 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Allied Failure

As with above ("Tactical British Victory"?), why don't we call the Result of the Operation a "Strategic Axis Victory" or a "Tactical Axis Victory". LCpl 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"over 34,876 men"?

This seems like a very specific number to then need the modifier "over". Does this mean MARKET comprised 34,877 men? 34,999? How do we arrive at such a specific number without being able to arrive at the actual number? Binabik80 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual figure from reports was 34,600, taken by tablulating all the troops listed in the tables. The line was changed to read "over 34,600".--Buckboard 07:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson

He did a program about his father-in-law, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions at Arnhem. Is this worth a mention in the popular culture section? Damburger 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jan van Hoof

No mention of the guy who disabled the explosives that were supposed to blow up the bridge at Nijmegen?

We do not know if it's fully true, he might have had some part in it, but we Dutch tend to overrate our heroes Folklung 20 dec 2007 16:33 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.107.84 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

the only good information

this is he only webpage that has good information on Operation Market garden on all the websites that I have looked at. The other websites dont give any information. is there any other websites with good imformation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Topherboy (talk • contribs) 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

There used to be one a while back, circa 1996/7 or so. I came across it when I first bought CC:Bridge Too Far and was looking around for information on the battle. It disappeared some time after that. Maury 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actions of the 12th and 8th Corps?

Does anyone know if the British 12th and 8th actually carried out their planned offensives? The map showing the initial plan has them moving up on the left and right of 30 Corp, but the battle itself seems to suggest they either never took part, or were greatly delayed. For instance, the 8th was supposed to advance up the eastern side of the line and eventually end up in Groosebeck, but I don't recall any mention of any 8th Corp units arriving there -- at least during the battle. Maury 17:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The damp & swampy ground of the polders either side of the highway prevented them from continuing past Day 2 chrisboote 13:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? If so it should be added to the article. --Shimbo 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Only source I have is from the Imperial War Museum's 1994 50 years anniversary exhibition, opened by Lt Gen Sir Brian Horrocks

They never reached Oosterbeek-they were guarding XXX Corps flanks but were continually and harassed by elements of patched SS Panzer units with heavy Tigers. What was brilliant of the Germans was that they would attack the 8th Corps column-then retreat-follow on the bankside of the road then hit the 10th corps-gradually depriving them of armour and precious time. By the time XXX Corps past Neijmegan-they were practically exposed. The of course they just STOPPED, due to heavy 88's on the road.

The operation had much potential. It should of worked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.172.180 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Do you have a source for that?"

One would suggest checking out the British Official History on the operation, my copy should be arriving within the next week or two ... of course when i finally get around to ordering the dam thing and stop being lazy. :D--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rate

Why is it rated start-class?--LtWinters 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not properly cited. Kirill Lokshin 11:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Abtfgame.jpg

Image:Abtfgame.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rated Start Class

How is this rated start-class? It should at least be GA in my opinion. --LtWinters 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my advice is to utterly ignore all of these ratings. Note that this is a former FA, and although all the suggestions to regain FA have been carried out, it's still not FA. And then to add to the annoyance, the other project rated it START. Bah, humbug. Maury 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To go from Start-class to GA-class you need to nominate the article first at Wikipedia:Good article candidates. – Ilse@ 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

General Horrocks

This text is found in the section regarding XXX corps advance; "General Horrocks refused to commit his troops until he received confirmation that the airborne forces had landed, having had experience of previous Airborne operations that had been cancelled on short notice." In all the texts I have read regarding Market Garden, I have never seen this before, and I find it surprising, given that the reason most drops were cancelled was because XXX corp themselves had reached the landing zones. I was wondering if anyone has a reference for it. Psychostevouk 08:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I always found this a little odd too. That was added in reference to a statement I had originally added, which questioned why the advance started so late in the afternoon. Had the XXX moved as the paras were landing, it seems safe to suggest that they would have reached the 101 in fine form. So what was up with that?

Another unrelated oddity... what happened to Richie and O'Connor? They were originally meant to parallel the main advance, but none of the material here mentions what happened to them.

Maury 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the line. I've read a lot more about the operation in the last year, and this is still the only place that I've seen it! Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Poles Arnhem.jpg

Image:Poles Arnhem.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"King Kong" accusations

In the spirit of "be bold", I've added a paragraph to the section on "unseized tactical initiative" about accusations made after the war concerning the penetration of the Dutch resistance.

Specifically, the "Spy Catcher" series of books (later made into a TV series) published by Lt. Col Oreste Pinto pull no punches in stating that although never proven beyond doubt, that author believed that Christiaan Lindemans, AKA King Kong, had become a German agent following his capture and injury while on a resistance mission.

These accusations will have gained wide currency in 1950s Britain following the publication of the books, though seem to have been forgotten again - a google search for "Christiaan Lindemans King Kong Oreste Pinto" turns up a couple of hits for declassified war memos and and the like, but nothing major. Lindemans and Pinto both have entries on the Dutch Wikipedia but these have not been translated. 82.163.43.10 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

edit war over the word “allegedly”

Guys,

Lets stop the edit war over the use of the word “allegedly”.

Either it is fact that the Guards waited before pushing on or it is fact they were accused of doing so even if they didn’t, so provide a citation to back up either position and stop the petty back and forth deletion and implementation of the word! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Prisoners of War

If one looks at the article it appears that no Americans or German troops were taken prisoner during this operation. Surely this is incorrect and figures should be displayed for them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Strength

Allied strength appears to be rather inaccurate. There was 3 airborne divisions, an airborne brigade along with XXX Corps and supporting operations by VII Corps as well as possibly XII Corps.

Surely there was more then 35 000 men involved.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

35,000 would represent only the airborne contingent (3 divs @ c10,000 men each plus one brigade and ancillery troops) Guthrum (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt the total also show the stregnth of Garden as well...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions by Craniotomist

Regarding the changes, edits and major additions by User:Craniotomist: So much new material with no reference? Please include citations for your conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I have reverted the edits. Some were valid but much was very POVish, stating as fact issues that are in contention in the histories, creating some errors, and including a *lot* of speculation. Discussion here first might be productive so we can agree on which cited content to add. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that removing so much from the article in one edit was the wrong way to appraoch this. My opinion would have been to leave it as it was and discuss here what to remove and what to keep as well as updating the referances and citations rather then just deleting everything which has been added.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unsure about those edits, they did seem quite PoV although there were some citations. I also thought the tone was a bit too chatty. Obviously they were in added in good faith and just deleting them may be a bit drastic. .--Shimbo (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that they were obviously good-faith edits. Nevertheless I think it would be far less disruptive to discuss the proposed edits here first. Some of them clearly would not hold up to scrutiny, although I grant others would. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bringing Craniotomist material back in dribs and drabs: The first idea put forward is that Monty was the only proponent. Is there a reference to support this sentence? Operation Market Garden has been debated from the moment it was mooted by Field Marshal Montgomery, its originator and only proponent in the Allied high command. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. First, does the word "mooted" make any sense in that sentence? This is a really archaic usage of the word. Second, Montgomery obviously sought and got Eisenhower's backing before he launched the operation. Third, writing "...has been debated from the moment..." is, IMHO, unencyclopedic writing. It is unnecessarily chatty, vague, and not true, although it is colorful writing. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying he was the "proponent" does make sence since he drew up the plans (unless of course there is evidence to suggest Dempsey, De Guingand or other members of 21st AG helped draw up the main plan etc). Just because he had to ask Ike for permission to launch the operation doesnt mean that it was somehow a multi Army-Group/High Command origianl plan etc - again unless of course there is evidence that Ike, Bradley, Churchill, Brooke etc started poking there noses in and saying which bridge to take what division to use lol

Please sign your entries, Enigma. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It takes thousands of staff hours to do even the most basic planning for something of this scale. Montgomery needed SHAEF approval and strong backing in order to employ the Allied 1st Airborne Army, which was *not* a 21st Army Group asset. So, Ike did indeed give approval to use specific ground and aviation units. Monty needed SHAEF to give supply priority to the operation at the expense of 12th Army Group, 6th Army Group and other operations. He needed SHAEF to agree that the objective of bouncing the Rhine was going to take priority over everything else, such as opening up Antwerp or reinforcing the existing US penetrations of the westwall. So to be clear: regardless of where the idea originated or who 'sold' it to whom, this was most definitely a theatre-level decision. Then, having got permission and resources, he seems to have disappeared from the conduct of the actual battle. I just don't think 'only proponent' makes any sense at all in this context. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Next major section of edits by Craniotomist has to do with the Scheldt. Immediately, he starts discussing what should have been done to trap von Zangen's 80k men; I think discussion of lost chances and missed opportunities should follow an account of what was planned and what actually happened, not be intermixed within such an account. Even then, such conjecture should be heavily referenced. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree; also, the Scheldt edit was error-filled. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Then, having got permission and resources, he seems to have disappeared from the conduct of the actual battle. I just don't think 'only proponent' makes any sense at all in this context. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)" I was actually reading something which basically said this the other day, unfortually i can't remember where it was or what it was in. Stated something along the lines of once it all kicked off, he essesntially started looking at other operations to plan/launch etc of which none of them exploited the possible success of this operation. In something else i was reading there was talk of the final objective that was favoured by 2nd Army was not Arnhem but some other town, iirc just inside the German border but it was Monty who pushed for Arnhem. Will have to find out where this was, it could provide additonal information for the planning section if it is not already there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Problamatic paragraph

Keith Flint in his book "Airborne Armour", asks why Montgomery did not task his brother-in-law Major-General Percy Hobart, who commanded the specialized combat engineering 79th Armoured Division, to attach some of his amphibious DD Sherman medium tanks and LVT-4 Buffalo amtracks that could carry troops, antitank guns as well as jeep and Bren universal carriers - the latter having excellent soft soil mobility.

Just flagging this up. This paragraph, to me at least, appears to make no sence - i think it needs a decent copyedit. Am going to go and delete referance to Hobart being Montys brother in law as it has nothing to do with Market-Garden.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph

Keith Flint in his book "Airborne Armour", asks why Montgomery did not task Major-General Percy Hobart, who commanded the specialized combat engineering 79th Armoured Division, to attach some of his amphibious DD Sherman medium tanks and LVT-4 Buffalo amtracks that could carry troops, antitank guns as well as jeep and Bren universal carriers - the latter having excellent soft soil mobility. He also believes that the failure to fly in the 6th Airborne Division's 6th Recce Squadron's paratankers with Tetrarch light tanks, to capture and hold Arnhem bridge as requested by Major Frederick Gough, played a major role in the subsequent defeat. Keith Flint believes that the Tetrach light tanks were landed with such great effect on D-Day by Hamilcar gliders that a German commander cancelled his counter-attack. However, there was an extreme shortage of both air and ground transport before Market Garden. Most gliders could only be used once under combat conditions, and could not be constructed within days for such an operation. The light tanks would have been no match for heavy German tanks and anti-tank guns. In any case Operation Market Garden was based on the premise that armour would quickly arrive by road, to relieve the bridges captured and held by airborne infantry (Whiting 2002).

Just removed this paragraph from the Competing solutions section as it doesnt fit in with what is being said--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

German losses accurate?

19000 Allied casualties to about 8000 Axis casualties - i understand it fits with the whole 3-1 odds notion, that an attacker will suffer approx 3 times as many more losses as the defender. However that pattern does not seem to fit in with other ETO battles etc. Is Stephen Badsey figures accurate and for all German losses during the entire operation?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vast part of the Allied losses were British Airborne Forces captured in the Oesterbeck Pocket. Over 6,000 Prisiones wounded or not. Another factor of the casualty ratio is the presence of Elite Panzer Divisions commited by Model. Best Wishes, Miguel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Every book I've read states (roughly) 6000 taken prisoner - most of whom were wounded, 1500 killed, and about 2300 escaped. The article states this too. 1st Airborne Division as a combat unit was essentially destroyed and never saw action again. Here's a good link. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The impression i am getting from the Official History is that the prisoners taken was around 4,500 men - not 6,000. Add in the dead and evacuated you get to around 8500 something and then the roughly 1600 men of the Polish Brigade brings you to 10,300 figure cited by the Offical History as being the total strength. My impression from his information is that other authors may have simplfied the 1st Airbornes losses and ended up actually misrepresenting them.

On tp of that, the website you have just linked to gives a third set of figures. Plus website sources are not deemed 100% accurate--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite an abbreviated form of your last post! Websites may not be the most accurate form of referencing, but when they all agree, and also agree with a host of books (A Bridge Too Far, A tour of the Arnhem Battlefields by John Waddy (veteran - well recommended book), The World at Arms, and most of the books in the references list) I suspect that makes it fairly verifiable information. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking into this since i got home, i actually feel a bit of a git now - it would appear that the Offical History has basically cocked up. He has misrepresented the stats quite simpley. Yes you are correct!

Being shown the war office documents early on as well which give accurate strength and loss information for both the 1st Airborne and Polish Brigade - bascially the figures do match up to the agreed loss information of 6k prisoners etc (although one should note the website linked to still appears to be incorrect - and some authors (actualy books etc) give various and simplifed figures).

I will delete pervious posts to avoid further confusion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears my fuck up is still buired within the british casualty information. The information gained for the Corps losses were from Wilmot which noone seems to have a beef with and AFAIK is spot on - however the 1st Airborne losses were from Ellis and he has fucked them up which i then copied. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

6th Floor Book Depository Building

I have removed all books from the referance section which have not been used within the aritcle. Here they are incase they need to be put back in.

• Clark, Lloyd (2003). Arnhem: Operation Market Garden, September 1944. Thrupp, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-75092-835-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |origdate= (help)
• Frost, John (2002). A Drop Too Many. Pen & Sword Books Ltd; New Ed edition. ISBN 0-85052-927-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Keegan, John (1994). Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation of Paris. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-14023-542-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |origdate= (help)
• Keegan, John (2006). The Collins Atlas of World War II. Collins. ISBN 0-00721-465-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |origdate= (help)
• Kershaw, Robert J (2004). It Never Snows in September. The German View of Market-Garden and the Battle of Arnhem. Ian Allan Ltd. ISBN 0-71103-062-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• MacDonald, Charles Brown. The Siegfried Line Campaign. The United States Army in World War II. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History. ISBN 0-71103-062-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Piekałkiewicz, Janusz (1977). Arnhem 1944. Ian Allan Publishing. ISBN 0-71100-826-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |origdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Powell, Geoffrey (1992). The Devil's Birthday: The Bridges to Arnhem, 1944. Pen & Sword Books Ltd. ISBN 0-85052-352-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |origdate= (help)
• Powell, Geoffrey (2003). Men at Arnhem. Pen & Sword Books Ltd. ISBN 0-85052-966-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Saunders, Tim (2001). Hell's Highway: US 101st Airborne & Guards Armoured Division. Battleground Europe. Pen & Sword. ISBN 0-85052-837-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |origdate= (help)
• Saunders, Tim (2002). The Island—Nijmegen to Arnhem. Battleground Europe. Pen & Sword. ISBN 0-85052-861-1. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |origdate= (help)
• Saunders, Tim (2001). Nijmegen—US 82nd Airborne & Guards Armoured Division. Battleground Europe. Pen & Sword. ISBN 0-85052-815-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |origdate= (help)
• Shulman, Milton (2003). Defeat in the West. Cassell military New Ed edition. ISBN 0-30436-603-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Major-General Urquhart, Robert Elliot (2008). Arnhem. Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 1-84415-537-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Weigley, Russel (1990). Eisenhower's Lieutenants: The Campaigns of France and Germany, 1944-45. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-25320-608-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Wilkinson, Peter W. (2003). The Gunners at Arnhem. P W Wilkinson. ISBN 0-95357-540-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |origdate= (help)
• Buckingham, William (2004). Arnhem 1944. Battles & Campaigns. Tempus Publishing Limited. ISBN 0-7524-3187-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Several of these are in the notes section. Shouldn't they also be in references? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, if they are mentioned in the footnotes the relevent above title should be in the Referances section. I'll double check and cover any of my errors :)

Aftermath section

The concluding sections seemed a bit scrambled and very, very wordy and tended to be repetitive. I've condensed it considerably, hopefully without deleting information not already contained in the article. It also badly needed some subheadings to break things up. I think the latest extensive edits are excellent info but they should really be cited as the article is not sourced.Michael Dorosh 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also broken up each day into subsections and considerably condensed the text - it was very conversational and wordy, though I must say the research is excellent and was a very useful contribution. There is a slight tendency to cheer for the Allies which must be removed - ie words like "luckily" etc. It is okay to say "luckily for the Allies", but to say just "luckily" is to take sides - in contravention of the Neutral Point of View policy.Michael Dorosh 03:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is shaping up nicely thanks to major efforts on the part of my fellow editors in the last week or so. Would be nice to see some day by day maps or something of the sort to add some visual interest.Michael Dorosh 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tactical British Victory"?

In what sense? This operation was a failure on all levels. DMorpheus 13:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a historical source is needed for this conclusion rather than we editors doing "original research." Certainly Montgomery viewed it as a tactical victory in being 2/3 successful or whatever the quote is. His detractors tend to be less kind about the final result. Strategically it achieved little; tactically, they moved the front 50 miles or so, but at terrible cost. The main objective of the battle went unfulfilled and cost heavily. Tough call, what do the historians say?Michael Dorosh 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree we editors should not be doing original research, which is one of the reasons why the 'tactical British victory' comment bothered me so much. It's ridiculous. Moving the front forward 50 miles in a very narrow salient was a *disadvantage* to 21st Army Group. Eisenhower's Lieutenants makes this point very clear, as well as noting the opportunity cost of the operation. It's in the article now.

Also, even if we agreed there was some tactical success, those were Allied successes, not just British sucesses. DMorpheus 14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points all around. As for the salient, does Weigley discuss the implications of holding the island during the winter, and using it as a base for the assault into the Rhineland in February? Either way, if the article discusses the result, then I agree the infobox should reflect that discussion.Michael Dorosh 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. It was an all-or-nothing operation to gain a crossing over the Rhine: no crossing=failure; the territory captured was neither here or their. I'm not sure how people will take this, but I've amended the result to an Allied failure as I think that is the most accurate description. Victory or defeat is perhaps best left to battles where armies are swept from a field. MAG1 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We are really splitting hairs here. The mission failed; we all seem to agree on that. The territory gained was a disadvantage to the Allies, not a neutral factor at all. The 21st Army Group *doubled* its frontage as a result of the salient. Two elite Airborne Divisions were slowly bled to help hold it; other US divisions were eventually sucked in also. It made a big difference in 21st Army Group's ability to mass combat power for any other operation. DMorpheus 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, the position of only considering the Allied performance, and drawing from that that this operation was an 'Axis Victory' is ignoring the Germans' situation. No matter what anyone says, the Germans lost ground and sustained heavy casualties in the engagements. Regardless of how useless you think that ground was, it was lost all the same. The Germans did not manage to decisively 'defeat' the Allied forces outside of Arnhem, either, and were pressed into using troops that could have been committed to the Eastern Front. Thus, I believe that the result should be listed as 'Indecisive' or 'Inconclusive'. 68.234.47.231 02:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the comments above or any of the better books on this operation. It was in no way 'indecisive' - on the contrary, the operation had a huge effect on th eoutcome of the campaign for NW Europe. DMorpheus 22:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside of Arnhem, Allied forces were not driven from the field, they did not have any massive surrender, they were not completely overrun or overpowered, the casualties did not decidedly favor the Germans, and their forces did not lose control of the bridges taken. In contrast, during the Germans' counterattack they committed troops that could have been used elsewhere, they took casualties comparable to that of the Allies, their forces were driven back or forced to surrender in many cases, and they never regained control of the lost ground. Only in Arnhem did the Germans meet with great success, and even that came at a cost for some of their best divisions at a time when quality manpower was very short (whereas the Allied elite divisions were much more replaceable). In fact, considering the casualties and the Germans' vast numerical inferiority by this time in the war, the Operation might have been something of an Allied success. However, I would definitely not classify it as such, as they did lose the British airborne. Also, I did read the above posts, and I can't agree with this more: "Victory or defeat is perhaps best left to battles where armies are swept from a field."68.234.47.231 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is original research to form our own judgments about the outcome. The major published work routinely describe this as an Allied loss, German defensive success, huge lost opportunity for the Allies, etc. The contention is mostly over *why* , not *what*. DMorpheus 22:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, could we at least put a note saying that the results are disputed in the information box and link to the section stating Montgomery's opinion (Reflections)? Surely Montgomery would be considered a Primary source.68.234.47.231 00:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Montgomery is a primary source. So are Gavin, Ridgway, Taylor, Eisenhower, Dempsey, Brereton....all of whom were clear that this was a very damaging Allied loss. The lost strategic opportunities were by far the biggest negative outcome. Take ten major works covering this battle and all of them will have a section on the *failure* of M-G. I can't recall a single campaign history that calls this a success. So I suppose this is 'disputed' in the same sense that evolution is disputed. Actually you will find far more people disputing evolution than the outcome of this battle. DMorpheus 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Montgomery's opinion is absolutely worth noting, regardless, as it was his operation. Also, I did not say that this was an Allied success (I said it might have been, were it not for other things), but I do think that to not recognize the negative impact this had on the Germans is ignoring their desperation. Alternative plans mostly called for an assault on the Siegfried line, which would have ended in many-to-one ratios of casualties favoring the Germans, as was demonstrated during the Battle of Hurtgen Forest (which, by the way, is classified as an Allied Victory on Wikipedia despite saying this in the article: 'An American historian, who served in the Hurtgen, has described it as “a misconceived and basically fruitless battle that should have been avoided”.'). 68.234.47.231 01:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No way could the words "Market Garden", "British" and "success" exist together. On the other hand, "US", "Allied" and "defeat" are also incompatible here. The 81st and 101st achieved their objectives (gloriously but overdue at Nijmegen) and held them. The Poles likewise, I don't think the withdrawal from Driel was forced. Only the 1st Airborne was actually defeated. It might be pedantic, but I think of M-G, overall, as a failure rather than a defeat of all the Allied forces. Folks at 137 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks at 137 and MAG1's assessment is entirely acceptable to me. DMorpheus himself states precisely that 'Take ten major works covering this battle and all of them will have a section on the *failure* of M-G'. It seems to be a consensus. 68.234.47.231 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just heard that the German took heavy casualties in Market Garden (8,000) thats false, there where much more german casualties at the Battle of the Bulge(70,000)and in Operation Overlord like (200,000), that where heavy losses. The allies in contrast took appalling losses in Market-Garden (17,000) if we consider the ratio of 1:1 in the bulge and 1:2 in Overlord.
The german army fought well considering the war was being lost by the Reich, and the allied plan was completly a surprise for Modell and Hitler. Modell was a genious preparing the defenses and calling for reinforcements in just some days. The German air force (Lufftwaffe) fought well shooting down many gliders and aircraft, much of the polish air tranported hevy guns where destroyed before reaching the drop site.

---

Operation Market-Garden or the Battle of Arhem was not a simple battle of the Western front. It was the second biggest allied massive deploment of paratroopers in open field (First D-Day) with more than 20,000 air transported personel and many comandos. The german army had their crack divitions too, including 2 SS Panzer Divitions like they allies counterpart, of the best fighting quality.
During the invasion the allies used their air armada of nearly 983 planes including 800 B-17s to destroy all the german anti aircraft positions. Making a clear way to the dakotas and the gliders. WHAT CONTINUED IS KNOW HISTORY.... Miguel

For the evaluation of Market Garden, the Germans suffered about as bad, porbbaly worse, casualties than the allies, who had a larger manpower pool. However, the Market Garden operation didn't reach its intended target, a bridge over the Rhine, thus potentially dooming the Reich in 1944, which alone would make it a strategic defeat in my eyes. And making it also a tactical defeat in my opinion, we have to look what the average casautly rates were ptherwise on the western front. I do not have the numbers, but I suspect that a 1:1 rate is quite bad for the standards set elsewhere for the allies during that stage of the war, and not doing Market Garden would have allowed more conventional operations elsewhere to be carried out sooner. For Market Garden, the invovled forces got top supplies of the overstrecthed allied logistics. Thestor 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)thestor

Please dont read the paragraph above this line, it contains false info. thanks.:: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Market was the largest airborne operation, as is made clear. (The figures for aircraft are considerably understated above). As for the surmise that Market garden robbed other Allied armies of supplies that would have allowed "more conventional operations to be carried out sooner"--doubtful. What was most needed for continued ops was fuel, the hardest to deliver and for which the least infrastructure was availble. C-47s could (and did both before and after the 9 days of Market) deliver other supplies but fuel demands were far beyond its capability.--Buckboard 07:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Decisive German victory?

Can this operation really be called a "decisive German victory" as in the Infobox? The German front lines were pushed back many tens of miles after all and much of the Netherlands was liberated. I am not arguing the Monty line that it was a 90% success but it was hardly a rout of the Allies. Dabbler (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. I'd have thought there was a more appropriate description, something like minor victory or perhaps something to say irrelevant victory for the allies - reflecting that although they made significant gains it wasn't for much without the Rhine crossing. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed Template:Infobox Military Conflict suggests 'inconclusive'. I like that description a lot better! Psychostevouk (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess Market was an Allied success and Garden was an Allied failure. A bit complicated so inconclusive sounds fine to me. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty thorough discussion of this topic above, on this very talk page. "Inconclusive" is a real misreading of the evidence IMO. The Allied decision to commit to M-G instead of the other courses of action open to them had a huge opportunity cost. The mission then failed; nothing worthwhile was gained but much was lost. It was a very serious Allied defeat, and almost any history of the campaign will call it that. But see the discussion above. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the discussion referenced above actually came to a conclusion, however, I can live with "Allied failure", but I thought "Decisive German victory" which was in place when I raised the issue was totally misleading. Dabbler (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Same comment, here we were discussing the 'Decisive German victory'. I had read the comments above, but I agree the conclusion wasn't amazingly clear. For my part, I understand the allied failure idea, but I didn't really think this did justice to the German loss. The allies failed certainly, but the Germans didn't win as a result, and 'allied failure' doesn't really reflect this. Inconclusive seems to perfectly describe the fact that neither sides actually benefitted from the battle. I don't think its original research either as most texts discuss the German loss and its relation to the allied failure. I bcan live with allied failure though, I just don't think it reflects the entire picture as it were. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What do the historians say?

Ryan, p.450: quoting Dr. John C Warren, Airborne Operation in World War II, European theater, USAF Historical Division, 1956, p. 146: "Thus ended in failure the greatest aiborne operation of the war. Although Montgomery asserted that it had been 90 per cent successful, his statement was merely a consoling figure of speech. All objectives save Arnhem had been won, but without Arnhem the rest were as nothing. In return for so much courage and sacrfice, the allies had won a 50-mile salient - leading nowhere".

Wilmot, p. 523:

"Summing up the overall results of Market Garden, ... monty claiming 90% .... This claim is difficult to support, unless the success of the operation is judged merely in terms of the numbers of bridges captured. Eight crossings were seized but the faiure to secure the ninth, the bridge at Arnhem, meant the frustration of Montgomery's strategic purpose. His fundamental objective had been to drive Second Army beyond the Mass and Rhine in one bound."

p. 524:

"...the results of Market Garden fell so far short of what Montgomery wanted..."

"The basic reason for the failure at Arnhem..."

p. 525 footnote

"Montgomery says that "Had good weather obtained, there was no doubt that we should have attained ful success". Student, when interrogated by Liddel Hart, did not go quite so far as this, but gave the weather as the main cause of the failure".

The same sort of comments persist, no mention of defeat but of the failure of the plan. He does note on p.523 that:

"This salient, 60 miles deep, was of immense tactical value for the puropse of driving the Germans from the area south of the Mass and thus removeing the threat of an immediate counter-stroke agaisnt Antwerp"

providing a counter to the American historians comment.

Shulman, Defeat in the West p.210:

"Yet despite the inability of the Allied troops to take Arnhem, the airborne operation had acheived some useful results. It had driven a wedge between into the German northern position, thereby isolating hte 15th Army north of Antwerp from the First Parachute Army on the eastern side of the bulge. This segregation from the rest of the German front complicated the supply problem of 15th Army.... The capture of these bridgheads across the Mass and Waal also served as an important bsae for subsequent operations agaisnt the Germans on the Rhine. 'The loss of the bridges at Grave and Nijmegen was a great embarrassment to us' said eneral von Zangen of 15th Army. 'By capturing them the allies forces us to remain on the defensive in this area in order to prevent this bulge from growing. We were never able to assemble enough troops for a serious counterattack to retake Antwerp'"

He otherwise talks about the failure of this that and the other in regards to Arnhem but calls it once, the "..defeat at arnhem..".

Stephen Ashley Hart in Collosal Cracks likewises calls it a failure. While i do not rate Max Hasting as a historian, he calls Market Garden a "disaster" and seperatly a "failure". Major Ellis, the author of the British Official campaign history for NWE : Victory in the West v.II, does not nail down the operation under any heading - he admits the Germans fought well and frustrated the operation, he critises the allied plans but does not call it a defeat or a failure. He does on p. 59 call it a "..spectacular advance..." however.

To sum up, they mostly agree that the operation was a "failure" nothing else and the majoirty (3 out of 4 iirc) note that the operation was not in vain and that the ground gained was worth it even if the overall plan did fail.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree you'll find a pretty broad consensus in campaign histories that this operation was a failure. You'll find far less agreement that it was "not in vain". Many have argued that it was actually counterproductive for the Allied cause strategically (see above with the discussion of Weigley). The ground gained was worthless strategically - it led nowhere, as Omar Bradley pointed out. It took a lot of manpower to hold onto it, robbing the 21st Army Group of unit that could have been massed for offensive use elsewhere. As it was they had to ask for additional US units just to hold what they had. So there's a school of thought that says the operation left the allies much worse off than they had been before. DMorpheus (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see both points, on one hand the operation gained strategically nothing unless that final bridgehead was secured as several historians have noted. However on the other hand, historians have noted that a byproduct of all this split the German Army Group in two and made it impossible for them to conduct a significate and co-ordinated counterattack to retake possibly the most strategically valuabled target in all of western Europe - Antwerp. The aftermath section or whatever it is called should really reflect both points.

In a personal opinion, i wouldnt call the operation in vain anyway - they tried and thanks to numerous reasons failed, if we could go back and change anything i would still launch the operation although slightly modified with hindsight of course. All in all i believe it was the right thing to do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, that would be original research my friend. DMorpheus (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The latter yes but not the former, i never said the latter should be included in the article, i stated that both points made by historians should be included.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok am going to transfer some of the above into citations to suppport "Allied failure". While i cannot agree with one of the editors who keeps adding in "Axis Victory" when there are several historians who note while the operation failed it achieved other objectives such as splitting the German Army group, prevented counterattacks etc - i feel that the result is too limited.

Would something like "Allied operational failure, Market Garden however did gain a 50-mile salient, split the German Army Group and prevented future German counterattacks on Antwerp" fit much better in the info box?

The above referances used do support this position. For example while John Warren says the sailent lead nowhere, he does not address the splitting of the Army Group or the preemptive halt to counterattacks like others do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect, again, I think the consensus on overall failure is extraordinarily strong. There is far less consensus on other secondary consequences of the operation. We are after all discussing the info box here, and I suggest "Allied failure" is the closest term to the historical consensus that clearly exists. Other, secondary consequences can be discussed in the article as they are now. To use a weasel word here, *some* historians would argue the salient was an allied gain; others would argue the opposite. We cannot capture all that in an info box but we can (and have) in the article itself. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I totaly agree with you that this can all be discussed in length within the article.

In fact ill add a note next to it state so, which will hopefully keep the editors who want to slap any old thing in there off all our backs.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the above discussion, and the term "Allied Failure" just does not sit properly. I think that "Operational Failure" was a little bit better. I say this because Allied Failure is a bit vague (what has failed?), whereas Operational Failure (or "Operation Failed") indicates that the Operation (Market Garden) did not complete its objective (the seizure of Arnhem bridge). Of course, DMorpheus' statements make it sound more along the lines of a Pyrrhic "Victory" to me, in that the opportunity cost of the operation exceeded its benefits, even if Allied forces obtained (marginal) victory in the field. I will leave it for you guys to decide - I just figured I would say something about it. By the way, thank you for the quotations, EnigmaMcmxc.72.192.189.232 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Info box

I don't want to get into an edit war Enigmamcmxc (or a personal war at that - I have no beef with you!), so I'll discuss this here rather than on the history page! Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict clearly states that countries are to be ordered according to relevance to the battle, and having a quick look around other WWII battles off the top of my head (Okinawa, Guadacanal, Italy, Alamain, Atlantic, Dunkirk, Normandy landings, France, Bulge, Berlin) all list belligerents in order of relevance. Admittedly 2 (Invasion of Normandy and Invasion of Sicily) did list them alphabetically, but they're definately a minority. The point of the infobox is for a reader to get an immeadiate gist of the battle. Listing the belligerents in order of relevance saves the reader having to wade through the article looking for each countries contribution. Listing UK at the top makes it clear that Market Garden was a British led operation, and mainly used British divisions - not a Dutch led insurgency! On another note, there was a Dutch SS unit SS Volunteer Grenadier Brigade Landstorm Nederland loosely involved in the battle. Does anyone think it worth including them in the infobox, or would they come under Germany anyway? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed elsewhere. Template:Infobox Military Conflict#Usage makes it clear that relevance or size of presence should be the criteria for ordering the combatants. Sicily and Normandy have been changed to reflect this. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i admit i had not been aware of this.User:EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Poles against MG

No one even pointed out in the article that Polish generalition was highly against Montgomery's idea of Market Garden, Poles even made a document which pointed out in many points that Market Garden operation is impossible to make and even if the Allies will land they will pay for it in very big casualties (as they did), mainly ideas of Poles just showed stupidity of this mission... --Krzyzowiec (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What book/document?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing he means the commander of the Polish Brigade, whose name completely slips by me now. He argued against it repeatedly. Off the top of my head, Ryan details it in A Bridge Too Far, as does Kershaw in It never snows in September and some others I forget right now as my books are in storage. Skinny87 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Strategic loss to the Allied Alliance. Repercussions on Montgomerys Legacy

From the montgomery wiki entry, it is hinted that the Market Garden was not just a tactical failure, it was a strategic one as well.

See the above sections covering the outcome of the battle. Most sources state it was a failure. The battle at Arnhem for sure was a defeat however on the whole the 21st AG was not defeated in a tactical sence as it fought the German armed forces back. Strategically, some historians call it a bulge going no where while other state it cut the German army group in two and thus stoped them from mounting a earlier co-ordinated counterattack.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

by strategic i mean intangibles such as morale, the anglo-us alliance, proper deployment of troops with respect to an overall attack on the german line. at any rate, i agree with the wiki entry that the loss and or misappropriation of so many elite troops weakened other parts of the allied line, in particular around the ardenne, figuring significantly in the battle of the bulge. this would be called a strategic loss. --Divbis0 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The loss of elite troops weakened the other parts of the allied line? How can the actions by the Divisional/Corps/Army and Army Group commanders in a compeltly different sector be blamed on a whole different Army Group and an operation launched months before? 82nd and 101st Airborne were not on the line and were in reserve in December and were rushed forward to aid the defence - a few extra thousand men would have somehow made the differance? 1st Airborne division most likely wouldnt have been dispatched into the American sector anyway.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, it had a long and detrimental effect on Montgomery's legacy and reputation. It may have created a lack of confidence by his peers, leading to decreased credibility and delegated responsibility from Supreme Allied Command, and gave his many enemies fodder for attack. Also, I get the impression that the MG loss was a big factor in keeping Montgomery from earldom (although there were other issues to be sure).

Monty already had enemies and had been at him since the beginning of the fighting in NW Europe. That and as you put it the "possability" of other negative effects on his character i dont think have relevance here. Thats my 2 cents, others may disagree with that position however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Montgomerys personally, ie, his other problems, you can read those on his wikipedia entry, and so i agree they dont need to be put in here. That is not my point. My point is that the MG failure had repercussions on Montgomery's career, perhaps limiting his responsibility in future engagements. Is there any doubt that this is the case? If not, then The black mark against such an important allied general, with resulting decrease in trust and confidence, would then be a costly strategic outcome of the MG operation, and should at least be mentioned. --Divbis0 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any citation which supports this position? Market Garden appears to have had no impact on his carrer since he became the Chief of Imperial General Staff.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly a supporter of Monty, but it cannot be said that Market-Garden did anything to limit his reposibilities. Churchill still had complete faith in him, as did Alan Brooke. He went on to command British forces and American during the Battle of the Bulge and then launched the largest airborne operation in history, Operation Varsity. He had no black mark against him in terms of his career; he may have been extremely unpopular, but his career wasn't limited. Heck, he went on to command NATO after the war. Skinny87 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps of greater importance, the failure led to multiple finger pointing and blaming, thus widening the rift between the british and US command, and threatening the crucial alliance that proved to be the backbone of the ultimate allied victory of WWII. Also, from the Battle of the Bulge wiki entry, it discusses how the Germans where aware of this rift, and one of the strategic goals of The Battle of the Bulge was to heighten the tensions to a point where the Anglo-US alliance broke (hence they drove in near the corp boundary between the two). So it seems that the loss of MG may have played a role in Germanys strategic planning as well.

If there is a source which states such a position add it in, although i doubt the alliance would have ever broke - they would have just got rid of the problem as am sure they threated Monty with (iirc over him badgering Ike all the time).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. first, its mentioned on the wikipedia's own entry under "battle of the bulge". Also, it was discussed extensively in BBC's "Battlefield" documentary series, episode 6, "the battle for the rhein" (excellent--check it out). Also, here is one of many historical mentions: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_the_bulge.htm. from these articles and documentaries, there seems to be a consensus by historians that hitler was quite aware of "the growing rift" between US and British military leadership, greatly exascerbated by the public bickering that followed the MG failure, and besides taking antwerp, his hope was to use the bulge to finish off the alliance with a strategic split down the us/british corp lines. whether or not Hitler's strategic goal was sound or even reasonable is a matter of POV (i happen to agree with you--hitler was a strategic idiot, but that just my opinion). A preponderance of historians think that Hitler believed this possible, and designed the ardenne offensive with that goal in mind. Thanks for responding by the way. --Divbis0 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly expert in this field, so I'll let other, wiser historians make the changes or not. I just thought it would be worth a mention, at least :-) --Divbis0 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, our Bulge article is rife with inaccuracies and errors, so I wouldn't quote it as historical evidence. Secondly, that website says nothing of the sort about splitting the allies apart politically or anything of the like. I fail to see any 'historical consensus' that Hitler was attempting to break the allies apart politically - indeed the only idea related to that I can think of is the plan for Watch on the Rhine to drive a wedge between US and British forces to drive for Antwerp. Who are these historians who have an apparent 'preponderance'? Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, there is a two hour 1994 bbc documentary "the battle of the rhine". (wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(documentary_series)#Series_One, or from IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120926/) or you can try http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_the_bulge.htm. there are many others to list, just check out the bibliography above ( aka 6th floor depository)--Divbis0 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to bow out of this discussion, mainly because I just noticed that most of this OpMG wiki entry seems to have been taken from one source, John Frosts book. This is the second entry in the bibliography above (aka 6th floor depository). But I did find the "6th floor depository" section a wonderful source of info. Also thanks for your stimulating arguments. take care. --Divbis0 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Relying on historical documentaries and random websites probably isn't the best way to learn about a subject, no offense. Actual, quantifiable books by serious historians are always better sources, and after reading thriugh a few books on Market-Garden by Kershaw and Hastings (It Never Snows In September & Armageddon:Battle for Germany 1944-1945), I can't see anything on Hitler attempting to divide the Allies politically. Skinny87 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to note the "6th Floor Book Depository Building" was just a piss take nickname so i could copy and paste all books which had not been used within the article i.e. not citations supporting they had been used as a source. The facts may be that someone originally did copy large chunks of one of those books however they have never used inline citations to support this so there is no point having any of them there until.

I also have to agree with Skinny, websites and documatries are not the west source of information. Ive seen enough documantires which give out dodgy information, them and websites on the whole never really tell you were they have gathered such information increaseing the fact there unreliablness.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Failed operation

From the 1st paragraph: "Operation Market Garden.. was an Allied military operation..". Wouldn't it be relevant to add the operation failed? Maybe something like "..was a failed Allied military operation..". Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not always appropriate to put black and white judgements into an article. It's very easy to want to do this, but it's not helpful. It makes us try to put everything into a box, and that's not what encyclopedia articles are for.

Did Market Garden fail? It didn't do everything it set out to do, but it seized two bridges and captured a lot of ground. If the criteria of success is doing everything it set out to do, then the Normandy landings were also a failed operation (virtually none of the assigned objectives were achieved on day 1). Let's also remember that objectives are not always assigned on the basis of "do this or it will be a failure". Football teams, for example, usually start a seaons with an objective of winning every game. That doesn't mean they are a failure if they don't do that. So let's not simplify things more than we have to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The info box is there to provide the information requested at-a-glance. As far as the outcome goes, that has been discussed ad nauseum. The parallel with Normandy is perhaps instructive: the normandy landings accomplished the main objective (securing a lodgment) despite the fact that not all secondary missions were accomplished. The opposite is true of M-G: the main objective (a bridgehead across the Rhine) was not achieved, and the achievement of many secondary objectives is irrelevant in that context. The negative effects on the 21st Army Group are also discussed above. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section

It seems that the whole section is poor, it is riddled with POV and uncited comments rather than facts, where these have been flagged no one seems to want to fix them. How can XXX Corps not advancing fior 18 hours be "alleged"? It either happened or it didn't. DMorpheus deletion of one paragraph made me go back and look at the whole section and his comments (Dubious, uncited, POV) can be applied to a lot of it. Dabbler (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire article can be described as 'Uncited, POV, Dubious', and I have long-term plans to clear it up. But there are too many editors and IPs who just add random stuff that doesn't get reverted to make it a viable Airborne Warfare project for me at the moment. When I do start the re-write, I don't intend to do it alone, it's too big for that; it'll need to be a team effort. Skinny87 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

German victory

Is anyone else bothered by the result in the info box? "Allied operational failure" seriously?. Everyone knows it was a German victory, shouldnt you have to rewrite all other military victories as "German operational failure" for example? Besides i think the quotes and refrences to "Allied operational failure" are vauge. Anyone else have an opinion on this? --Nirvana77 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been covered multiple times - the historical consensus is on an Alied Operational Failure, as whilst the primary Allied objectives were not achieved, some secondary ones were. Hence the title. Please don't change it. Skinny87 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wont change it unless people agree with me that it should be changed. I think it can be misleading to just have "Allied operational failure" and the fact that they were denied their objectives makes it a German victory, maybe there could be some sort of compromise? But if everyone likes it the way it is i wont touch it, but i dont think that's the situation. --Nirvana77 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You will note in one of the above discussions the opinions of several historians have been quoted.

None of them describe the German actions to the entire operation as any sort of victory and all talk of an operational failure on the allied part - not being able to cross that final brigde to complete the mission.

To sort of sum up, the allies failed on there overall objective - the overall operational failure; tactically they beat the German Army bar at Arnhem; strategically split the German Army Group. It not as simple to say the Germans won and the Allies lost or vice versa.

For the moment it seems the best we can have until the article has been really worked over to give a more clear picture of events and with the bais and dodgy info removed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying it was a tactical and strategic victory for the allies? I think some historians may disagree with that. --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpiting what i have just typed. I suggest you read the quotes displayed in the sections above. As i said, the Germans were tactically defeated all the way up to Nijemgan, beyond there its a different story. Strategically - as stated - historians have noted that the German Army Group was split by this attack.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the main reason it can't be placed as a German Victory is that the German's didn't gain anything or inflict a decisive defeat on any Allied forces other than 1st Airborne Division. The Allies gained a great deal of ground and a finger of territory pointing into German territory, and also inflicted heavy losses on German forces. The Germans lost ground and personnel, and whilst Monty's plan to advance into the North German Plain had to wait for Plunder/Varsity, it wasn't a massive defeat. Skinny87 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I worry that this is going to keep dragging on - ip editors keep changing the result anyway - seemingly regardless of what it says. For my part, I don't believe a German victory is appropriate at all, but I'm afraid that "Allied Operational Failure" doesn't sit well with me either. Whilst it was the case (it didn't all work out for the allies) I don't feel it takes the whole result into account or does the German losses any justice. As well as that, for an infobox deigned to give a simple rundown of the results, Allied operational failure seems confusing and vague. My vote would be for inconclusive, which I think neatly covers the stalemate situation that developed at that front as a result of the battle, and the fact that whilst the allies made great advances, it had little effect on the outcome of the war. It also covers the fact that the Germans didn't really get anything out of it either (the bit of the result that isn't covered by "Allied Operational Failure" and probably the reason most people change it to German Victory). I also think that reading most of the historians works cited by Enigmamcmxc is suggestive of inconclusive (even if they don't use that exact word) - as Enigmamcmxc says: "they mostly agree that the operation was a "failure" nothing else and the majoirty (3 out of 4 iirc) note that the operation was not in vain and that the ground gained was worth it even if the overall plan did fail". So not a total failure then, but not a victory or a defeat for the Germans. For me, inconclusive rounds it up nicely. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden was certainly not "inconclusive". The operation was a failure, no doubt about that, not many historians would call it anything other than a failure, so in that sense it was not inconclusive at all. Then there can be a debate whether it can be called a German victory or Allied defeat or not but Market Garden was certainly to the very least an "Allied Operational Failure". So "Allied Operational Failure" sits much better with me rather than "inconclusive", and that is at least sourced. --Nirvana77 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't disagree with Allied operational failure. The problem is it only describes half the result - the allied half. For an outcome section in the infobox it doesn't explain what happened to the Germans. The allies failed, but they didn't 'lose' in the regular sense of the word. Likewise for the Germans - they din't win but they didn't lose either. The final result wasn't a victory for anyone.

Inconclusive: Not conclusive, not leading to a conclusion.

I'm not going to get too involved in this cos I could see the way it was going last time it was debated. But isn't it a little telling that the result continually gets changed and debated? Psychostevouk (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of the points you have made. The thing with military operations, speakly purely from a historian point of view and not an actual soldier, is that there not always black and white i.e. X won or Y won etc

Unlike in Normandy, where operations launched to capture ground had the overall primary goal of really pinning down and destroying German formations, it appears that this operation was purely to capture ground. In that case the Germans did win a victory - but what type?

It surely wasnt a tactical victory considering American airborne formations and British ground troops battered there way past Nijmegen and succesfully held the corridor open - although on the other hand the German forces held up progress past that point and defeated the 1st airborne division. You could call that the inconclusive part, but that doesnt deal with the overall picture. If what, i believe it was, Ryans (quoted above?) stated that the attack split the German army group in half thatis surely an Allied strategic victory?

Prehaps instead of aiming at one level, or attempting to describe the operations result in 1-3 words we should look at it from muliplte levels i.e. tactically, strategically etc?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I fear an incredibly important facet is being completely ignored here. That is the strategic situation when the decision to execute this operation was made. The Germans were in disarray and the allies believed (wrongly, it turned out) that they had the Germans completely on the run and the war might be over very soon. The question they thought they had before them was how to best end the campaign given the very dangerous logistical condition the allied armies were in. One school of thought was to clear the Scheldt, open up Antwerp (which was already in 21st AG hands) and create the logistical conditions to smoothly continue into Germany with all army groups. A second option was an offensive in the 12th AG sector, in which the west wall had already been penetrated. A third was M-G, with the goal of getting across the Rhine in the 21st AG sector so as to enable a rapid advance into Germany. One possibility that was *not* open to the allies was to advance in all AG sectors, because they didn't have the logistical tail to do it.

As we all know the gamble was taken - M-G was the boldest of the three options and it was launched. Call the outcome what you will; I think the info box is good enough as-is.

At the end of M-G, the opportunity to rapidly punch into Germany was gone. The front was stabilized (this result did not favor the allies obviously). The German 15th Army was allowed to retreat in good order. The 21st AG had doubled its frontage, meaning that they needed far more forces in the line simply to hold what they had. Elite US Airborne units sat in defensive positions for which they were ill-suited. The salient that 21st AG took was worthless strategically. It pointed nowhere. The allies took their best shot and did not achieve their mission. The failure meant that, because the other opportunities had been allowed to slip away, the campaign would go on for some months more.

There is no way this can be considered an indecisive or inconclusive result. It was a huge allied setback. Even "operational failure" doesn't quite cut it since the effects were strategic. Consideration of the other options available should make that obvious. "Strategic Allied Failure" would probably be the best infobox result but there's no way I am getting into that argument again ;)

Weigley is an excellent souce on this. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you dont want to get into the debate again but stating it was an Allied strategic failure ignores the point made via Shulmans book that it cut a German Army Group in two and forced them onto the defensive.

The allies were not the only ones to suffer strategic setbacks and there mulpitple points of view regarding the ground captured - if it was worthless or not.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Germans were already on the defensive. Prior to M-G they were hurrying out of the low countries as fast as they could. Afterwards they had stablized their front. No offensive action was launched out of the salient until the war was almost over. In the meantime, holding it used up units that would have been better employed elsewhere. Case closed. DMorpheus (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring evidence to support you own personnel views. I believe, and will double check later, that II SS Panzer Corps was moved into the Low Countries - that’s not exactly hurrying out of said area. Likewise defending around a salient, I would imagine, would take up more forces than defending a more straighter line further back etc

The "forcing them onto the defensive" comment was aimed at the overall strategic level, the historian points out the wedge drove between the two German armies prevented them from launching an combined counterattack i.e. forcing them to remain on the defensive.

You also seem to be downplaying what happened following Market Garden. The Anglo-Canadian Army Group didn’t just sit on their bums - they carried on the war and launched several successful operations. The Canadians took over the position facing Arnhem, since they did liberate the city, and the 2nd Army I believe moved further south, considering the where Rhine crossing operations took place it would like they actually into Germany proper. So who was stuck holding this position, the two US Airborne Divisions? Both of whom were relieved and placed in reserve prior to December.

Claiming that because no offensive actions were launched directly out of the salient until the end of the war, and units were stuck holding it, equals case closed on the "worthless" of the ground seems very POW’ish – especially when there is at least one historian who counters this position.

From my study and reading of other operations throughout the war, launching repeated attacks from ground gained doesn’t seem to be the norm but that doesn’t automatically make it worthless. For example, several operations launched by the British Army during Normandy; they poked salients into the German lines and then launched an attack elsewhere. Or the Battle of Kursk, where the Soviets did not launch their counterattacks out of the salient they held, they launched them from north and south of it, if I remember correctly.

So no, it’s not case closed because it is not that simple.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not *ignoring* contrary evidence, I have evaluated it, done the research, and find it completely unconvincing. The sources don't all agree on the aftereffects (although I think some are far more sophisiticated than others) and neither do we. So be it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As you are well aware however, this is an encyclopaedia project aiming to provide a balanced point of view - not a one sided "case closed" argument based off one set of sources while dismissing others you personally don’t agree with (unless it is extremely obvious that it is wrong). While i don’t fully agree with the revisionist phase of historians of the 1980s i am more than willing to provide their point of view balanced out by post revisionist phase historians of the present day - who show that the Anglo-Canadians fought in appropriate means and evaluate the operations they fought in a more balanced manner etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

optimistic planning

Today skinny 87 removed my input about optimistic planning stating that middlebrook does not say anything like this and that you tube is not a good reference. Perhaps my phrasing can be better but the essence of the message is true. My copy of Middlebrook's Arnhem 1944, hardcover by publisher viking, Penguin group, first edition 1994 page 442 states the remarks about major Brian Urquhart (later to become UN undersecretary general) and general Sosabowski. He even calls it overoptimism in which Urquhart and Sosabowski were the only two to challenge the euforia and both got "punished". Ryan both in the book and film a Bridge too far describes a similar situation (major Fuller in the film being major Brian Urquhart in real life). The youtube reference contains an interview of Sir Brian Urquhart in which he describes the situation and his dissappointment which were lessons for the rest of his life. I think such references are rare and valuable. Is it true that youtube can never be used as a reference? perhaps the original footage can, but how can one find that? So in essence, my opinion is that removal is very drastic, change in words or sentence acceptable. Thank you. --Dutchdoc (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize for removing the content; after looking at my copy of Middlebrook again the two are mentioned, although more vaguely than what your section implied. I do believe removing the youtube video was correct, however, as it is not a WP:RS. I apologize if you feel slighted, and will not revert changes again should you wish to revert or re-enter the data. However, I would not enter the youtube video as evidence. Skinny87 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Apperently dmorpheus does not agree with my former input or my writestyle? even though the information is correct (in my opinion) with a reference of one of the later and better books about arnhem by Martin Middlebrook. Why does one not even have the courtesy to edit the writing style if one does not like it? instead people on this wiki prefer to just delete correct input, a pity. not really a stimulance to work on this project--Dutchdoc (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Because this is the english-language wikipedia, and if your english writing is so poor that it must be rewritten, you are simply creating more work for everyone else. It seems to me the objective is to make articles better, not worse. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Message received, have fun overhere. --Dutchdoc (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

inline citation in lede

The first inline citation in the lede is for a TV programme which, apart from any other consideration, has no historians on its advisory board (according to an un-referenced statement at the corresponding Wikipedia article). I don’t doubt that the statement in the lede is true, but could someone please reference it from a more authoritative source? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this many times and the consensus of the sources is that it is an Allied operational failure (though some want to make that a defeat). To have a TV programme as the only source contradicting this in the first paragraph seems a bit silly. I will restore the original wording. Dabbler (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the river IJssel??

For MG it is claimed that "The strategic purpose was to allow an early and easy Allied crossing of the Rhine river, the last major natural barrier to an advance into Germany, and in particular into the Ruhr industrial heartland of the Nazi state." But when you cross the Rhine at Arnhem you still have to cross the river IJssel east of Arnhem in order to reach Germany. The river IJssel in general is about the same size as the river Rhine at Arnhem and was actually used in the movie "A Bridge too far" to simulate the river Rhine. So even when the allies had succeeded at Arnhem, they still had to cross a significant river. before they could enter Germany. Does anybody know if the allies had plans to deal with this problem? --Dutchdoc (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sosabowski and the Dutch resistance knew about the next river, but rest of the commanders most likely had no bloody idea about it... :) (this is a joke of course)--Jacurek (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The original orders for the Second British Army for its part in Operation Market Garden were:

(1) The first task of the Army is to operate northwards and secure the crossings over the Rhine and Meuse in the general area Amhem-Nijmegen-Grave. An airborne corps of three divisions is placed under command Second Army for these operations

(2) The Army will then establish itself in strength on the general line Zwolle-Deventer-Arnhem, facing east, with deep bridgeheads to the east side of the Ijssel river. From this position it will be prepared to advance eastwards to the general area Rheine-Osnabruck-Hamm-Munster. In this movement its weight will be on its right and directed towards Hamm, from which place a strong thrust will be made southwards along the eastern face of the Ruhr."

So IMO the idea was that the 2nd Army would be so far behind the German lines in such strength and with the Germans in such disarray that the British could capture bridges across the Ijssel at will. Note that the orders envisaged the whole 2nd Army advancing across Holland. However the supply situation made it such that only XXX Corps could actually do so, with the well known results. --Shimbo (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)