Thread: Arnhem debate

Ooh can of worms.

Bridge too Far? Probably not. cock-up? Oh yes.

Dropping all troops in 3 waves over 2 days? Total debacle that led to a massacre of men whilst still under the silk, and made so much worse by one idiotic Rupert taking the sodding plans with him! Also the complete refusal to believe intelligence from locals that there was a Tank division in the area, the blind assumption the local German Defence would not fight, the ridiculous belief that the 8th Army could break through on single track roads.....

I am unsure if the attack coudl have worked even if all men and supplies had been droppe din one wave as desired, but the lack of bombers available prevented it.

The other side is did Bomber Harris deliberately refuse to supply bombers, using the excuse of strategic bombing after D-Day to keep the demand on the back burner, leading to the failure of one part of an overall plan?

It was a matter of honor with the British. They needed their own final victory so show for the years of suffering they endured. So they allowed Monty to throw what was to turn out some very loaded dice. Monty knew full well what they were up against and choose to ignore the facts. They were infected with the disease of command called over confidence or an underestimation of your enemy. They looked over the ground around the area of operations pretty thoroughly but only saw what they wanted to see. It simply had to go off for the glory of the empire.

It is always the commoners that pay for the mistakes of the upper classes and in the British army you went nowhere without proper family ties. They suffered from poor command and paid for it in lives because of it. Monty was a specialist in not making big mistakes in static warfare with his forces having a considerable advantage in equipment and men. Give him a favorable situation with a predetermined objective and he will get it done. He had the gift of inspiring confidence in his men, all and all he was effective if properly supervised. Unfortunately the supreme commander loosened the reins at the wrong time way too much for Monty’s own good.

In Monty’s defense he had the right ideal when he proposed the armies should be formed into one solid mass and go straight for Berlin. I believe he had reached the correct conclusion when he said to the supreme “The Germans cannot possibly stop us. We will be simply too strong.” Again he was right that he should command this powerful mass of armies. He was after all the top field commander of the allied force. His foresight would have saved us a lot of lives even using his costly tactics had the supreme listened to him in the first place.

Market Garden was a bust before it began. Poorly planned and executed in a manner that insured failure. Even though the Americans proved beyond a doubt the value of strategic bombers used as flying artillery to create a breakthrough, as in operation Cobra, the British still allowed Bomber Harris to horde and squander a large portion of the British air force as his personal revenge weapon for his own personal war when they needed him the most. The relief column that was moving way to slow in the direction of Arnhem needed help and that was obvious from the beginning. Low level carpet bombing is what was required here. The heavy bombers would have done the job to open the way to Arnhem. But Harris was simply too narrow minded to do the right thing and release his weapons on the field of battle.

So what we are left with is the best of the British army dead or in P.O.W. camps. It happens but in this case it was avoidable. No I do not lay all the blame on Monty’s door only most of it. The supreme has to take his share as well. After all he approved the operation and negelcted to follow up after he made the wrong decision to let it go ahead.

Welcome to the forum bniziol. Now...

Originally Posted by bniziol

It was a matter of honor with the British. They needed their own final victory so show for the years of suffering they endured. So they allowed Monty to throw what was to turn out some very loaded dice. Monty knew full well what they were up against and choose to ignore the facts. They were infected with the disease of command called over confidence or an underestimation of your enemy. They looked over the ground around the area of operations pretty thoroughly but only saw what they wanted to see. It simply had to go off for the glory of the empire.

The word bollocks comes to mind here. Even during the war years Britain was negotiating the independence of parts of her Empire, so this had nothing really to do with her empirical tyranny, which is the undertone here. The Commonwealth countries didn't have to turn out and fight for the UK, but they chose to do so. And that has led to strong ties to this day between us and old colonies. we support each other, even if we do bicker. Yes, there were total cock-ups in reading the situation. They shouldn't have jumped at Arnhem, but the rest of Market Garden was overall basically a success. Just one area was a failure and you have just branded the whole operation a flunk.

Originally Posted by bniziol

It is always the commoners that pay for the mistakes of the upper classes and in the British army you went nowhere without proper family ties. They suffered from poor command and paid for it in lives because of it. Monty was a specialist in not making big mistakes in static warfare with his forces having a considerable advantage in equipment and men. Give him a favorable situation with a predetermined objective and he will get it done. He had the gift of inspiring confidence in his men, all and all he was effective if properly supervised. Unfortunately the supreme commander loosened the reins at the wrong time way too much for Monty's own good.

Again bollocks. There were many gentry and titles down in the ranks. I've heard several anecdotes of Lord This and Lady That being nothing more than privates and happy with it. My cousin was one of the youngest Wing Commanders and highly decorated members of the RAF when he was killed. He was from commoner stock. His father worked in the Indian forestry commission, so yes he was from an Empire background, but who wasn't in 1939? Yes a lot of senior commanders were from money backgrounds, but then we put all of our Officers through Sandhurst, where they get a very good grounding in defence and attack tactics and leadership. And bad officers tend to get dealt with in very terminal ways, especially during war. And during a long drawn out war such as WW2 a lot of people came up from the ranks to take command, so please do not come out with the old money chestnut if it cannot be full supported.

Originally Posted by bniziol

In Monty's defensce he had the right ideal when he proposed the armies should be formed into one solid mass and go straight for Berlin. I believe he had reached the correct conclusion when he said to the supreme "The Germans cannot possibly stop us. We will be simply too strong" Again he was right that he should command this powerful mass of armies. He was after all the top field commander of the allied force. His foresight would have saved us a lot of lives even using his costly tactics had the supreme listened to him in the first place.

One mass of army is an interesting concept, but how do you move such large numbers in Europe where we have a mediaeval landscape of narrower roads and fields?

Originally Posted by bniziol

Market Garden was a bust before it began. Poorly planned and executed in a manner that insured failure.

Market garden was not a bust before it began, those river crossings had to be taken and held or the Allied Advance would be stopped. Arnhem failed, but the other objecives did not.

Originally Posted by bniziol

Even though the Americans proved beyond a doubt the value of strategic bombers used as flying artillery to create a breakthrough, as in operation Cobra, the British still allowed Bomber Harris to horde and squander a large portion of the British air force as his personal revenge weapon for his own personal war when they needed him the most. The relief column that was moving way to slow in the direction of Arnhem needed help and that was obvious from the beginning.

The Americans had one of the higest death rates in their Bomber Fleet due to daylight flying. We operated out bombers at night, and even then we lost over 50,000 personnel. And it seems to me you are thinking in modern terms in this respect as evidenced by the following:

Originally Posted by bniziol

Low level carpet bombing is what was required here. The heavy bombers would have done the job to open the way to Arnhem.

Strategic carpet bombing? Yes, that was already happening, but those areas hit by HE looked like the Somme afterwards. How do you move hundreds or thousands of men and artillery over that? Can't be done. Yes strategic bombing of certain sites such as Axis artillery, fuel and ammo dumps, but HE bombs are blind, They do not have the directional abilities of now.

Originally Posted by bniziol

But Harris was simply too narrow minded to do the right thing and release his weapons on the field of battle.

Yes he was protective of his bomber fleet, but that was because he knew the losses they suffered night after night, and he also knew the very limited effectiveness of their use in paving the way for armies. Look at Caan.

Originally Posted by bniziol

So what we are left with is the best of the British army dead or in P.O.W. camps. It happens but in this case it was avoidable. No I do not lay all the blame on Monty's door only most of it. The supreme has to take his share as well. After all he approved the operation and neglected to follow up after he made the wrong decision to let it go ahead.

The only real failure I see in Market Garden was Arnhem, and that was down to the limited number of bombers for the gliders, the decision to drop over 2 days instead of as quickly as possible, one Rupert taking the drop plans and timetables with him despite strict orders not to to everyone, and Arnhem literally being that one bridge too far.

Originally Posted by Kitty

Welcome to the forum bniziol. Now...



The word bollocks comes to mind here. Even during the war years Britain was negotiating the independence of parts of her Empire, so this had nothing really to do with her empirical tyranny, which is the undertone here. The Commonwealth countries didn't have to turn out and fight for the UK, but they chose to do so. And that has led to strong ties to this day between us and old colonies. we support each other, even if we do bicker. Yes, there were total cock-ups in reading the situation. They shouldn't have jumped at Arnhem, but the rest of Market Garden was overall basically a success. Just one area was a failure and you have just branded the whole operation a flunk.


Again bollocks. There were many gentry and titles down in the ranks. I've heard several anecdotes of Lord This and Lady That being nothing more than privates and happy with it. My cousin was one of the youngest Wing Commanders and highly decorated members of the RAF when he was killed. He was from commoner stock. His father worked in the Indian forestry commission, so yes he was from an Empire background, but who wasn't in 1939? Yes a lot of senior commanders were from money backgrounds, but then we put all of our Officers through Sandhurst, where they get a very good grounding in defence and attack tactics and leadership. And bad officers tend to get dealt with in very terminal ways, especially during war. And during a long drawn out war such as WW2 a lot of people came up from the ranks to take command, so please do not come out with the old money chestnut if it cannot be full supported.



One mass of army is an interesting concept, but how do you move such large numbers in Europe where we have a mediaeval landscape of narrower roads and fields?


Market garden was not a bust before it began, those river crossings had to be taken and held or the Allied Advance would be stopped. Arnhem failed, but the other objecives did not.



The Americans had one of the higest death rates in their Bomber Fleet due to daylight flying. We operated out bombers at night, and even then we lost over 50,000 personnel. And it seems to me you are thinking in modern terms in this respect as evidenced by the following:



Strategic carpet bombing? Yes, that was already happening, but those areas hit by HE looked like the Somme afterwards. How do you move hundreds or thousands of men and artillery over that? Can't be done. Yes strategic bombing of certain sites such as Axis artillery, fuel and ammo dumps, but HE bombs are blind, They do not have the directional abilities of now.



Yes he was protective of his bomber fleet, but that was because he knew the losses they suffered night after night, and he also knew the very limited effectiveness of their use in paving the way for armies. Look at Caan.


The only real failure I see in Market Garden was Arnhem, and that was down to the limited number of bombers for the gliders, the decision to drop over 2 days instead of as quickly as possible, one Rupert taking the drop plans and timetables with him despite strict orders not to to everyone, and Arnhem literally being that one bridge too far.

Thank you for your response Kitty. It is not my intention to offend you in any way with the truth but the simple fact remains that Market Garden was a total bust. They never moved for a year on that axis of advance after the British defeat. To not be in possession of the Arnhem Bridge insured the operation would fail. It is totally wrong to say any part of this operation was anything but a waste of time and lives. The finest soldiers of the British army were slaughtered in an ill conceived plan that was totally British in the making. To even begin to suggest any part of this operation was a success simply has no bearing in fact. The British army was defeated and wars are not won by defeats.

The British motives for such a risky venture are and will remain crystal clear. It is no secrete Monty was not happy about being upstaged by loud and anti British Patton. Let’s face it Patton was brilliant but a bit of a buffoon. As such Monty wanted back on center stage by himself. There was no room in his ego for anyone else. These people were human and most of them were pretty full of themselves especially Monty who was downright vain. One only has to look at the crossing of the Rhine. Again Monty wanted nothing to do with the bridgehead Patton had established, Even though they had an axis for advance into the heart of Germany. He took weeks lining up troops for his own crossing in what was one of the most extravagant and successful operations of the war. Only problem was it did not need to happen. Look at Sicily, Monty was enraged by being what he thought was, upstaged by Patton. Face the facts the man did not like being what he perceived as third behind the two Americans, Ike and Patton. He needed a victory of both his own prestige and the empire and Winston agreed all the way. This is common knowledge I really cannot see what basis you can argue successfully against this point.

As for the colonies the British were shooting people calling for independence in India before, after and during the war. If this is what you call negotiating I beg to differ. In Canada it was business as usual the British were still living under the bankrupt ideal that they were owners of our country. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. The differences between large segments of the populations of both countries were both wide and deep regardless how much the Governments tired to whitewash it. In Quebec the vast majority wanted nothing to do with the British or what they believed was their war. Most did not report for the draft. In western Canada the situation was slightly more favorable but not much. The British were not liked, their perceived arrogance was right or wrong seen as a flaw by almost all Eastern European settlers who were fast becoming the real political power in the west. Combine that with how hard the British and their Canadians of British background tried to keep Slavs out of the inner circle of power. A shameful denial of their democratic rights based on ethnic lines that will not be soon forgotten. So there was no love for the empire out west most people wanted nothing to do with it and still do not. Understand something, my father and 3 uncles did not fight for Britain or the empire, they fought for freedom and for some revenge for the brutal murders of their extended families in the Ukraine, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Some still to this day maintain we should have not taken orders from the British but rather fought under Canadian command who may have had a higher regard for Canadian lives. But I can assure you we will never take marching orders from the empire again. In Central Canada (Ontario) they were willing to die for the empire and they did. Ontario held the seat of power in Canada in the dark times so in a way you are partly correct there were some content with the status quo.

In Australia the imperialist Churchill destroyed relations with that country that have not been repaired to this day. Imagine their partner in war diverting Australian troops on their way home to defend their country which was in grave danger. The Royal navy took the troops against their will and the will of the Australian government to of all places Burma so the British could try save the empires golden triangle. Winston did not even bother to tell the Australians he kidnapped their last line of defense against a barbaric and cruel enemy. I can tell you with complete confidence the Australians were not impressed and to this day see this as a betrayal of the highest order. After that outrageous and stupid act the Australians never fought beside the British again. They threw their lot in with the Americans who were somewhat more open to listening to their concerns. It will never be known just what Curtin told Churchill over this act of betrayal but it is almost a sure thing he read him the riot act because navy did not waste a lot of time getting them home after Curtin made the call. Combine that with the fact Churchill in a very direct but what he believed was politically correct way called Curtin a coward. Things were not well in the already mummified empire even at the highest levels. To suggest they were is living in a dream world.

Here is a question for you. Why would the one of the most class conscious societies in the world not extent this practice into the army? Let’s get real here. They had royalty who had privilege. I hate to break your bubble but no one else who mattered in the free world of the 1940s had royal family or called their head of the navy First Lord. Do not try telling me the British army was not a class conscious institution when the whole country was and still is to some extent based on class and privilege.

It matters little to the outcome of Market Garden what time of day the British and American bombers flew over the wrong target they were still over the wrong target. It is not rocket science that if your drop a few thousand tons of bombs over a relative small area the damage will be substantial and if you fly at reasonable altitude accuracy is enhanced. Of course you will loose bombers but all is not perfect in war. Again look at the facts of operation Cobra. The Americans literally bombed the Germans into submission and they drove through the gap like they were on a Sunday drive. They Germans were utterly destroyed by the bombers and as such little effort was needed to break the line. Cobra should have been a blueprint for future operations. Was no one in the British army paying attention? Where was the supreme commander asleep at the wheel or under orders from his political masters to let Monty run the market garden show? Hard to be sure but I believe he should have stepped in and ordered the use of heavy bombers or better yet nixed the whole operation. It matters for nothing what flag the troops were flying the war was a combined operation and our guys were going to be killed by the score.

It is easier to move an army in mass than have axis of advances all over the place. If moving an army of that size was beyond the skills of the British-American commanders then we should have gone hat in hand and asked the Russians to borrow Zhukov he managed to move over a million men more than one time over infrastructure that was a lot more primitive than Germany and France. I will always be convinced Monty could have pulled this off despite his short comings, which were not crippling, he was in fact a near genius in logistics and movements of large formations. I have always been a believer in the right man for the job. Monty would have been the right man for his plan of direct assault with everything he had.

There is a lot of chance involved in warfare. But you have to be realistic, miracles do not happen often. My opinion is cities and territories are not the most important factor in war. The goal is to defeat your enemy’s armies. Moving in mass toward Berlin was the right thing to do. There is no doubt the Germans would have showed up in their way they simply had no choice. Force the battle and use your overwhelming advantages and sound tactics to defeat the enemy. I view the supreme's decision not to consider Monty’s plan a grave mistake that cost tens of thousands of lives. You cannot be right all the time and Monty was as wrong to try Market Garden as the supreme was in not accepting Monty's war ending battle plan. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I would respond to your concern of my undertones in detail but I do not believe this is the forum for political discussions. But I will be upfront. Let’s just say I consider the British Empire was and still is evil, brutal and just plain wrong. Serving no one but the fat London bankers and their criminal gangs of thugs. But that does not make me blind to the facts as there were at the time. Please do not forget Kitty the difference is like night and day between being an empire and living under one.

Hi bniziol
I am sorry that you are so angry with anything to do with GB.
I know your posting is not representative of the Canadian people as a whole, whom you try to represent.
I served in England and Germany with the Canadian forces, never once coming across the the type of enmity and venom contained in your posting.

Keith

Thank you for such a considered response Keith. Your complaint has been noted under forum rules.

BN, about 98% of that post of yours was utter tripe based upon prejudice and political narrow mindedness I had hoped never to see on this forum. However I will try to respind to the relevant points of your post if I can recall them after having had to wade through all of it.

My partner served 20 years in the British Army, parts of it alongside Canadian Forces, and he has told me straight he has never seen or heard the enmity you say is prevalent towards the UK. In fact many of tem were proud of their British heritage. And also that many of them were also of the opinion the French Canadians were rather bigoted against everyone.

You say the British Empire was evil? So was the French empire. Please take a look at Africa. And so was the Spanish. And Portuguese. And Dutch etc etc etc. History has excellent hind sight, as does changing times. So please stop viewing the past with the eyes of now and view it with the eyes of then.

I am struggling to recall the relevant points of your post, if in fact there were any as it was mired with so much bile and venom anything relevant was literally swamped.

I think you stated Operation Cobra was a sucess because the American bomber fleet bomb the living daylights out of the Germans. Yep, success. Mone Cassino - bombed into submission? Erm. no. Caan? Total cluster f**k that was! The Americans bombed part of their own army in broad daylight! So it had been proven to high command that trying to bomb a path for the army wasn't exactley a sucessful strategy. Better to destroy the enemies supply chain, takes longer but is a damn sight more effective.

And Arnhem had to be tried. Whether it was purely because of Monty's 'ego' or the fact that a second front was trying to be opened to split German defences and get a second route into Germany is anothe rmatter that you are overlooking amongst your rants.

Now a word on forum ettiquette. I love a flame war as much as the next person. Ok Keith doesn't like them but I do on ocassion. What i will not tolerate however is personal bigotry brought to the fore to try and defend ones own arguments. You are showing all of the signs of a classic troll who has major chips on his shoulders about some kind of perceived hatred of another individual or group. Please do not trot out any more Empire hatred crap here as I know you are not representative of Canda, except a minority who will alway have a problem with history.

I am willing to discuss and debate, but I will not take crap as you have spouted above. I have had several PMs already about your posts and abusive tone.