What went wrong with Operation Market Garden?

Every one agreed with MG,because something else with more chances of success,did not exist.

 

That's what the ground troops claimed,blaiming the airborne (while the airborne blamed the ground troops),but,even if the bridges had been taken,this would not mean the success of MG: occupation of the Ruhr and collapse of Germany : if the Germans were strong enough to block the airborne,they could be strong enough to block the guards .

 

but,even if the bridges had been taken,this would not mean the success of MG: occupation of the Ruhr and collapse of Germany

There I'd agree. The operation could have succeeded in the sense of achieving its specific objective, a bridgehead across the Rhine at Arnhem, but that would not have magically ended the war. Somewhere back in the stream I acknowledged - and I'm probably not the only one to do so - that the Allies' supply situation would have stymied the exploitation of Market-Garden just as it did everything else in fall 1944.

 

Are you sure? I've often seen clearing the Scheldt suggested as a viable alterntative.

 

Are you sure? I've often seen clearing the Scheldt suggested as a viable alterntative.

Good point. I think a lot of people thought of that as sort of a mopping up operation, that would happen automatically after the front lines advance beyond that point - despite such examples as the German garrisons holding out in the Channel and Biscay ports.

There was also a strong desire, going all the way back to Marshall and Arnold in Washington, to use the newly created airborne army in some sort of decisive operation, somewhere. The ever-present logistical situation made it impossible to move the airborne and their transports to the Continent, so any operation would have be within range from English bases, even though the ground forces were advancing beyond that radius; i.e. an airborne landing, like Comet and all the other aborted plans, would have to be in 21st Army Group's sector. A lot of people were thinking "how can we use the airborne?" rather than "what's the best way to win the war"?"

 

Clearing the Scheldt would not result in the end of the war before Christmas.:it was cleared and ...the war ended in may 1945.
There is also the importance of the date :the allies were convinced that there still was a window of opportunity in september 1944(IMHO,the window already was closed),but the window would disappear in november,or sooner:if the allies wanted to do something to end the war before Christmas,it had to be done in the first half of september ,at last.
It was a gamble,which only could succeed if the German resistance was neglectable,Ike and Monty gambled that it would succeed,the alternative being the war lasting till 1945.:fortune favours the bold .

 

??? Who said anything about ending the war before Christmas? That's either a strawman or an extreme case of moving the goal posts. If there is an operation to clear the Scheldt instead of Market Garden then Antwerp will be usuable as a port much sooner. The operation is likely to be far less costly as well. How much this would impact the war I'll leave up to others with a better knowledge of the subject but it is clear that it would have helped the supply situation from October on.

I'd like to see some sources on this.

I've seen pretty strong arguments that even if the operation succeed it wouldn't have had the benefits that were claimed.

 

The feeling that Germany was 'finished' and the war could be 'over by Christmas' was widespread and is a recurring theme in books on the Normandy campaign. I know I am not giving sources (because I am too lazy) but I have read it many times in a number of books.
The Germans refer to the period as the 'miracle in the West' for good reason. The Lorraine campaign, though an Allied victory, was a sharp reminder that Germany was far from finished.

 

I am not biased I recognize what Monty did well, but Monty took over after Rommell had already been defeated and yet he is the greatest thing ever,sorry I dont buy it. Monty deserves credit for restoring the 8th army after two years of humiliation and he deserves credit for the Normandy planning, which was also started by someone else. Monty is among many good generals, but certainly not great. I dont know why Slim does not deserve as much if not more praise since he did everything Monty did with half the resources. If you want some one to have the paise then you have to accept the criticism as well. Monty failed to clear the scheldt, he let Rommell escape and he let the Germans escape Sicily, was that also part of his always perfect planning.

 

The thing about prejudice is you never realise you have it.
You never see that which is obvious to others.

Though I never said anything like Monty was the greatest thing ever/his always perfect planning and despite this in my post No. 296:

I realise my pointing out this prejudice will not be well recieved so feel free to castigate me for claiming Monty was the world's most perfect General was free from any errror or character flaws...............

you do exactly as I said you would!

You revert to type in that you take my attempt to balance the argument as a claim Monty was the world's most perfect General was free from any errror or character flaws.

Your statements 'he let Rommell escape' and 'he let the Germans escape Sicily' are so far from reality as to be risible.


You can continue to fool yourself but it is obvious you share the transatlantic obsession with denigrating Montgomery.

 

There also was the pressure from London to do something about the V1/V2 attacks on London

 

Rommell himself said that if Monty had been more agressive during the pursuit he could have finished the job.

 

As Rommel was on sickleave,this is meaningless,and also irrelevant for MG.

 

For the 4th time (this ....reply function):from Wiki:
The MG plan,although riddled with risks,was a perfectly reasonable plan to have attempted at the time .

 

continuation :the Germans had been heavily defeated and their chaotic retreat through France and Belgium encouraged the belief that they would collaps under one more hammer blow .

 

If any factor can be singled out as to why MG failed,it is this over-optimistic attitude that the Germans were already beaten .

 

So to sum it all up, MG failed due to an amazing response by the Germans and to poor planning by the Allies and the view that the enemy was already beaten, A view which no sane military commander would have until the job is done and dusted.

Might I suggest that m kelly and steverodgers just ignore each other's point's of view? Does not look like either of you would agree on each other's so no need to really start an argument and get the thread blocked, hmm?

steverodgers view point's do have some merit, You should look at the good along with the bad, While he may post mostly bad that is just the way it is, A Monty fan will post mostly good and ignore the bad, A Monty basher will post the bad and ignore the good.. I my self have only come across off the top of my head maybe a dozen people on here that are objective even if they are a fan of the person..

 

Well obviously you do not read very carefully because (apart from the wrong name) you missed the insertion of completely unrelated (To MG)comments about Mongomery's abilities. What on earth are NA and Sicily doing in a NW Europe thread?

More careful readers will note my earlier comment(this is the second time I draw attention to it)

Let me put it in simpler english..
I made no positive comment about Montgomery.
I never said he was good/better/fantastic/perfect.
I never gave any opinion at all about Montgomery.
What I did was draw attention to someone who made purile negative comments about Montgomery whilst claiming he was unbiased.
He was far from unbiased.

This bias led him to interpret my lack of opinion on Montgomery as me infering:

I suspect that you make the same error.

As outlined above I do not fall into that category. If you have evidence to the contrary then please be so good as to post it.
In fact I would be grateful to anyone who can find me an authorative thread (not mindless gamer forums) anywhere that promotes the 'Monty was the best General ever' argument. Strangley though these mythical Monty supporters are much referenced evidence for their existence is completely absent.

 

One I have made good comments about Monty. Two you answer any negatative comment about Monty with "you are just biased" my last comment

 

The allied attitude was :the Hun is on the run,now,it is the moment to kick him on his private parts (although I have my doubts that one can kick o his private parts,some one who is running away),of course,if one is trying to kick some one on his private parts,the risk is that one would fall down.