Operation Market Garden

[Banshee7]

Ok, here's a debate/discussion for you guys.

For one of my history classes, I had to watch A Bridge Too Far and write a 750 paper on it answering the following question:  Do you blame the failure of Operation Market Garden on British arrogance and poor planning or stiff German defense?  Why?  You cannot ride the fence and say it was a combination of the two.  You may not do any outside research--base your answer solely off of the movie. 

For my paper, I blamed Bristish/Allied arrogance and poor planning.  From what I gathered from the movie, this operation was to be larger than D-Day and any other invasion, yet it was only planned in three days.  Some of my points included the fact that it was scheduled to be a mass, daylight air drop behind enemy lines, denying the skill/power of the German forces after seeing reconassaince photos of German armor, and the sole fact that it was planned in such short time that they obviously did not have everything in order.

So, based on your knowledge of Operation Market Garden, what do you blame the failure of Operation Market Garden on?

#S#



Josh

[FiLtH]

 I blame Hollywood. Some of the casting was the standard "Who's Hot Now" thing.







Oh....number A then.

[Butcher]

I blame benard montgomery. Basically his goal was breach a path into Germany and over the Rhine. it wasn't the German defenders that were anything of a problem - He ignored intelligence from dutch resistance fighters, ignored the weather, ignored supplies - allies just captured antwerp.

Market Garden was a terrible risk, I don't think any combat commander would of made. Normandy had the German's spread ALL over France, there was a small margin of error but acceptable, Market Garden however was a very small area of operation.

D-day I believe was a seriously unacceptable risk, however given it was a fortune of war the German's did not release everything it had at normandy - was the only reason it came out successful.

Market Garden was far to high of a risk in my book, I never understood why the allies simply didn't keep pushing instead of trying to jump so far ahead. The Germans were not beaten at this point - it was estimated at least one million soldiers still existed on the west. It was a gamble that simply didn't pay off.

In my personal opinion I could not understand why Monte pressed Market Garden so hard, I believe his persuasion of Eisenhower and seriously poor planning lead to the complete failure of this operation.

[nrshida]

[RTHolmes]

... history class ... You may not do any outside research ... base your answer solely off of the [dreadful] movie.

you're kidding?

[zack1234]

British Arrogance  

You win some you lose some

Narzzies surrendered to Montgomery in the end, they were still trying to negotiate as well, daft heads.

How embarrassing having the whole of Europe and then having nothing

Starting two wars and losing two

[nrshida]

Before this thread goes any further, your question is a contrived dichotomy, your history class isn't, and this topic is inherently revisionist and offensive.

[zack1234]

Before this thread goes any further, your question is a contrived dichotomy, your history class isn't, and this topic is inherently revisionist and offensive.

Shida likes soft fruit 

[guncrasher]

you're kidding?

it's a movie report, not different than a book report.

I blame benard montgomery. Basically his goal was breach a path into Germany and over the Rhine. it wasn't the German defenders that were anything of a problem - He ignored intelligence from dutch resistance fighters, ignored the weather, ignored supplies - allies just captured antwerp.

Market Garden was a terrible risk, I don't think any combat commander would of made. Normandy had the German's spread ALL over France, there was a small margin of error but acceptable, Market Garden however was a very small area of operation.

D-day I believe was a seriously unacceptable risk, however given it was a fortune of war the German's did not release everything it had at normandy - was the only reason it came out successful.

Market Garden was far to high of a risk in my book, I never understood why the allies simply didn't keep pushing instead of trying to jump so far ahead. The Germans were not beaten at this point - it was estimated at least one million soldiers still existed on the west. It was a gamble that simply didn't pay off.

In my personal opinion I could not understand why Monte pressed Market Garden so hard, I believe his persuasion of Eisenhower and seriously poor planning lead to the complete failure of this operation.

agree with butcher but with one addition.  the british got slaughter because their tanks had orders to not move unless they had infantry with them.  it was basically a matter of British officers not willing to accept a deviation of orders.  as opposite to the american officers who when given an order would do anything to accomplish it.  and by that i mean the american officers would just round up the nearest soldiers and go accomplish their mission.  the British officers  on the other hand wouldnt risk anything to accomplish their mission.
 that is why the american officer was yelling at the British tank commander who told him they had orders to not move unless they had infantry.  so the british were slaughters at arnhem.  same reason why the resupply planes ignored signals from the ground and dropped their supplies over german held territory.

it was a grandiose (is that a word?  i am drunk) mission made just to make the british general happy.  it failed and a lot of good soldiers died for no reason.  It was eally a waste of men and materials.

semp




semp

[zack1234]

British general happy

fantastic

Books are good if you read them

"Masters and commanders" is a very good one, it describes the relationships between the Allied commanders and leaders.

The British Army elites disliked Montgomery, he had a odd idea of sacking people in the field if they were poo

Patton go a lot of grief as well I believe

The Narzzies got owned

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Bernard Law Montgomery's arrogance, as well as his overly optimistic and ambitious planning. The two primary factors were his willingness to completely ignore valid intelligence that strong German units with good commanders were in the area, and his ludicrous position that 30 Corps could make that run in that short period of time. Third would be dropping so many of the British airborne troops and assets so far from their objective, and fourth would be the delays in getting the Polish units in. Montgomery made up his mind to go ahead prior to getting the full intelligence reports, in fact, he'd made up his mind that the operation go ahead whether anyone else thought it possible, and managed to get Eisenhower to allow it.

Montgomery was also one of the key commanders who thought that the December 1944 Ardenne offensive was not possible and that the Germans would not try it even if it were. It was Patton who not only said the Germans could do it, but that they would do it. He also had a plan for a counter offensive before the Germans attacked. But it was Montgomery who was allowed by Eisenhower to take command, and who came in "like Christ coming to cleanse the temples" (as a few of the commanders stated). But it was Patton who Eisenhower turned loose with his plan to relieve Bastogne. And it was U.S. units already in the area that held the Germans at key points. Montgomery tried to take credit for stopping the German offensive in order to repair his image after his unmitigated Market Garden disaster.

[ozrocker]

Arrogance, Poor Intel (Didn't know 9th Pnz was in area refurbishing),
Poor communications , Poor planning.
Guess he didn't know the 7 P's
Prior, proper planning prevents piss poor performance

                                                                                                                                                          Oz

[DaveJ]

British arrogance, poor planning, failure to heed intelligence warnings.

I wrote a research paper on this freshman year of college if you ever want some more info, Banshee.

[Plawranc]

Before we go on a huge "British bashing" campaign.

I would just like to say that the British actually did link up with both 101 and 82nd using one road using British Infantry and Armor. And TOOK Arnhem bridge initially and prevented them from laying DEMO on it. All the while with bad radio equipment and little support. 

German resistance was heavy, VERY heavy. Crack Panzer divisions being reformed from the Russian front. SS Divisions. The whole damn thing. Not to mention 2 field Marshals and 3 generals all of which with both experience and close relations with Hitler allowing for preferential treatment in terms of support from Germany.

I would hardly call it "Brits being cocky". Britain was perhaps arrogant, but even then, if it HAD been old men and children.... it would have worked. I think that German resistance played more of a role than Britains arrogance.   

[zack1234]

No keep British Arrogance thing going (Shameful behaviour)


Maybe the Germans and French could put a bit more effort in the Middle East.


There have been enough of our boys defending democracy with their lives.

General Marck Clark was a American?
Rommel was a traitor?