What If Market Garden Was Given To Patton

Page 2 of 4

(sapper @ Dec 7 2005, 12:50 PM) [post=42797]Sometime the postings seem to forget there are two sides in a war, and both want to win. You win some, you lose some.
Sapper images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
[/b]
Sapper, that sentence about sums up the point of apportioning blame and arguing about it from 60 plus years distance, in my opinion. I didn't expect to hear it from you as a veteran but you're right!
I was going to add some details about the german strengths but I seem to have lost the word doc I had. images/smilies/default/mad.gif
Kind regards
Matt Gibbs
sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

Hi Matt things go wrong in war...many times. but on the whole, from the landings onwards to Bremen where my mates finished up, the whole thing went almost perfect, seriously.
looking back, I took part in every single one of those battles until the Bstrds caught up with me near the German border. Overloon in Limbug Holland.
I know it is very unusual to find a genuine veteran, able of capable of recalling those days.
Sapper
I don't get where you got the idea that I "blame the 82nd for Son. I never said anything to the kind. If you watched Band of Brothers you see what happened when XXX Corps got there. Those airborne troops were not going to do anything without armor. Rock, paper, scissors Angie. You can't ignore that. The GARDEN had to be there at all three bridges to hold them under pressure. The probability of failure WAS always there. The attempt to take Nijmegen was to be made that afternoon but they ran out of daylight. The city of Nijmegen (not just the bridge) was blocked by 9th SS Panzer on the 18th. Get a map Angie and follow this closely. Draw a line from where you knew 9th SS was at Arnhem and then draw a line to the middle of Nijmegen where they were the second day. Can you tell me what bridge these tanks that include Tigers would have crossed? Now draw on top of bridge on lift of 82nd Airborne troops. Now using the map you drew on, can you draw the position of the dead paratroops that would have stood in the way of that kind of armor without any kind of cannon or anti-tank gun that had to come over it if they could have survived the 88s pointing anti-personnel rounds and 20mms of "flak alley" that are so devastating to infantry pointing straight at it? I think you have a much distorted view of the defenses at Nijmegen or just how defenseless simple soldiers are against such weapons and tanks. Like I said there were TWO SS Panzer groups that crossed that bridge by the end of the 18th. Even if their rifles and grenades had been perfectly placed when these weapons were firing, you still would have had to have cleared the corpses off the bridge to get the tanks over. It was not that they didn't desire to get the bridge at Nijmegen. After 10 SS arrived, 9 SS left because they were not needed there. With your wildest imagination, using all your tactical knowledge, and most radical idea, how do you take a bridge covered by 88s (remember this area was called "Flak Alley" AND why they were dropped 15 km away from these bridges as evidenced by the fact they had to cross the river on the 20th under fire of these 88s and 20mms) while SS Panzer groups are to cross it? I am open to any kind of suggestion you have or theory you would have as to how such a monumental tactical feat could be done even by a group with the reputation of the 82nd. I would be grateful if you could teach me how scissors would ever break rock. Call it serendipity or whatever but if the 82nd had taken Nijmegen on the 17th, they would not have held it on the morning of the 18th and 9 SS Panzer would STILL be in Nijmegen blocking the road to the town only the first lift would not be their to greet the second lift nor to help cross the river on the 20th (dead men are terrible fighters). So was Monty's. The Dutch Resistance said they could not risk another liberation by Monty. But you have to remember that Browning's role according to Patton was the head of the Paratroops even from Sicily. He was not a general purpose general, he was a specialized general. Just incase you had forgotten that was the last parachute drop of the war. I would have thought the lessons of the Battle for Crete would have clarified the need for more than paras. All of this was known by Monty when he campaigned for the plan. 30th Corps went only three hours on the 17th. Why? Why did they not travel at night? Patton did in the relief of Bastone and that was in a blinding snowstorm. He moved a whole Army through mountains and forests. Hmmm, sounds like you think they were stopped by someone shouting out the window. On one hand you say that all the other history is wrong which said that they fought constantly until 30th got there. Of course the next day 9th SS was IN the town of Nijmegen cutting off access to the bridge. But this company failed to take an "unprotected bridge" with all the Flak guns of "Flak Alley" that was so dense the transports would not drop them within 15km of the bridges, all because of a lack of "resistance"? Good theory, go with that. It goes well with your theory that Browning's execution was the problem with Market Garden. You sound like Monty. "Those tanks are probably not functional, let's go with the plan". Let's see, no resistance held back the 82nd, two non-functional sorry panzer groups killed 1st Airborne and drove a whole army Corps into retreat and abort of their plan rather than going another 10 miles to Arnhem to complete the mission with the 82nd. BUT the fleeing 15th Army on highway 67 put up tough resistance to an armored corps to delay them into completing 57 miles in a couple of days. No bias or hyperbole in that. As far as a sacrifice, I think you are talking more about a suicide. Without the armor, it would be suicide, with the armor it was a sacrifice. You had only one lift on the 17th. The bottom line here is that the Germans would have liked to cut them off at Son, but the tanks were not in position to do that. The bridges at Arnhem were taken easily on the 17th and unopposed until late on the 18th because the armor was going to Nijmegen to cut them off and to stop the tank support that by definition has to be coming to support paratroopers. Arnhem wasn't assaulted at first because the objective is to cut them off first, which they did. Every commander knows you don't drop in paratroops without a plan to relieve them. They were clear what was coming and what the move was to stop it. Cut off their reinforcements and supplies and the airborne troops can be destroyed at leisure. Yes, and how did that "hold until relieved" thing work out for 1st Airborne Angie? Was it such a success in retrospect that Browning is criticized in retrospect for not exposing the 82nd to the same hopeless fate? I don't doubt that the 1st Airborne put it on the line in Arnhem. You probably would not have seen more fierce fighting anywhere else in the war, any side, any country, but their effort was doomed from the start. I don't believe they were told the risks ahead of time and the improbability of the plan's success known by all of the command ahead of time. Hat's off to Frost. But all Monty did was waste some elite soldiers with the hearts of lions, and I think that simply makes it all the more reprehensible. 9th SS Panzer was at Nijmegen on the 18th blocking access to the town. That is the 82nd Airborne side of the Nijmegen bridge. 9th SS did not leave Nijmegen until the arrival of 10th SS Panzer seeing that there was no Allied armor there to oppose them. Had the 30th have been there like they were supposed to have been then 1st Paras at Arnhem would not have faced them and could have easily held out. Wait a sec, it took another day once the armor had arrived to allow the fighting to go house to house which they say happened, but you say didn't. I get the impression that you and those that espouse similar theories, believe that Germans fled the area, taking troops (which you called depot workers) SS Panzer groups, 88s and 20s AAA, mortars and machine guns and fled to Arnhem. Again, where was the wisdom in suicide? Since when are elites expendable? Since when are any expendable. That's the whole idea behind kamikazes isn't it? All the 1st Airborne did was prove that it could not be done and that the 82nd would have suffered a similar fate had they have succeeded in taking the bridge in front of the 9th SS and 10th SS coming. They would not have lasted through the night. This plan was Monty's. He forced it down Ike's throat. Ike lacked a backbone. This is becoming very clear when I see what Patton wrote when reading his diaries. Monty ran all over Ike. Patton said he was like a spoiled child that demanded everything his way. Patton wrote these in his diary because the US generals were not allowed to criticize their allies under threat of court marshal. Patton believed that Monty should have been court marshaled for insubordination. Monty made the war grievous on US generals but since Churchill ran WWII, he let Monty get away with murder. If Monty was "psychologically absent" then he should have been relieved from further field command, not just strategic command. Horrocks' actions as I said bordered on cowardice. He allowed 8000 brave men to die to save even a little risk to his own tail. He stopped after they crossed the Nijmegen bridge and REFUSED to go further until the opposition that you said could not happen and therefore securing Groesbeek Heights was of no value, did come on the other side of the river from the east. The 82nd and the Cold Stream Guards beat down the counterattack. If Market Garden is a strategic error, they the blame goes to Monty, you could say Ike because he allowed Monty to badger him into agreeing with it. If Market Garden failed because of tactical errors, then you have to assign that blame to Horrocks alone. Horrocks didn't have the option of caution. Not in this battle. I am not certain that Market Garden could have worked if Patton had been called up to execute it, but I can tell you that they would have been at Arnhem when they were supposed to be. A high risk mission such as this needs someone with nerves of steel when commanding. Anyone afraid to take the risks that 1st Airborne (and the others too) should never have been leading the relief effort. Your use of the depot worker was condescension. It was meant to illustrate how little the resistance was in order to denigrate the fortitude of 82nd for not taking the "suicide" bridge at Nijmegen. The 82nd Airborne never gave up a single yard of territory they took in the entire war. This was their legacy. They were the same men that went house to house in Nijmegen on the 19th and the men that risked the river crossing under such heavy fire on the 20th to get several DSC winners and one congressional medal of honor winner. These men also lost 2000 men to this little resistance you imply they were apprehensive to challenge when they "failed" to get the bridge at Nijmegen. El Guettar, the drive to Polermo, the drive to Messina, the Falaise gap, the Avaranches, the Britainny Penensula, the "first" taking of Metz, the dash to Bastone, established the bridgeheads across the Meuse River (then he took a little break, any idea why?), the cracking of the Siegfried Line with his Ghost troops, drive across the Rhine with Hodges, drive to the "National Redoubt". Patton could move so fast not because of the British myth that the Americans faced little armor but because he didn't let his enemy "dig back in" after "digging him out". This minimized the losses to his men, maximized the losses to his enemy and bought him a lot of territory in a hurry. But, since you asked the question, when did Monty ever move at all when there were Germans in the way without the help from Patton or TAC? Again, why did they have to be that deep into Holland? He wasn't going anywhere until Antwerp was opened. On the side south side of Arnhem where they were counterattacked, 30th Corp was past the Siegfried Line. Blow the bridges at Arnhem and head east. I think the objective was Berlin not Neder Rijn. At the south of Arnhem, Germany was east not north. Also if Market Garden had a chance to succeed as planned, it could have done so by retaking the bridge at Arnhem with 82nd and 30th Corps. Why would pay that price and back out at the victory line? This made the 13000 troops lost die in vain. It does not matter which army had done it. As you know Patton wanted to continue so he could do just this. He was almost to the Siegfried Line. He made light work of it. Airborne forces were specialized. They could never operate in the open. They are not designed for that. They are a pin prick in the heart rather than a bullet though the abdomen. The use of them without Armor is to waste them. This was the argument of Patton and Monty. They did not believe that you could risk leaving them high and dry. There are just too many things that do always go wrong. It was never worth the risk. The rate at which Patton was moving, he would have just about beaten Monty to Berlin with a successful Market Garden by his current plan. You could say that it would have shortened the war by 6 months, but that would be simple conjecture which could be easily countered. I believe it could have saved about a month tops, if any at all. Dropping those same paras at the Rhine crossings might have been a better plan. Market Garden had more risk than just failure of the operation itself. First of all because you still have the chance of being cut off by the offensive Hitler was planning. Second was the fact that Patton would have been across the Rhine faster than he was if the Germans had not been given the time to drop back behind the Siegfried Line and regroup. There is no point where an army is weaker than in retreat that is moving so fast they are having to abandon their armor and artillery as they were in fleeing Third Army.
I engage you on these issues Angie because I respect your knowledge. You are a typing encyclopedia. If someone else spins their biases in their statements, I am less inclined to engage them than you because hearing something I think is rubbish sounds worse coming from you. Imagine Geoff (spidge) telling you that there was little armor at Caen. If someone else says it you would probably think oh well, that's the prating of a madman and disregard it, but with someone of his caliber (just like with yours) you expect more. I think you have biases about Market Garden. Not sure why because I have rarely heard you carry the banner for Monty or anyone else for that matter. So, in a way this is personal but not in the way you might think.

Jim
(sapper @ Dec 7 2005, 07:50 AM) [post=42797]I often marvel at the accusations of failure levelled at the British. Was it a long shot? Too damned right it was! Was it worth it? again, too damned right it was. had we cpmpleted the whole of that thrust we would have been in Berlin first, there would have been no cold war as it turned out. Germany would have lain mainly in our hands.... Now with aftersight? market garden was a blasted master stroke. It failed on one element only, all the others were achieved. The Eastern thrust took all its objectives...100%
[/b]
You might think it was worth the risk Sapper because you returned to state that. The 11,000 men that died who were there also and I think they are the only ones really able to make that call. Not to mention the fact it opened the door for the Ardennes offensive where a crap-load of men were killed. There is a big difference between high risk and outright insanity.
To say that it was a blasted master stroke leaves me shaking my head. There is no success in the loss of more men than your enemy without having a single gain. That's like betting a bunch of money on a roulette table, building it up to a large fortune, and then losing everything on the last turn of the wheel. How is that a victory? Sounds more like a rationalization to me.
Jimbo
Are you arguing in defense of armor?????????? You are saying that Airborne Troops need Armor?? I thought you said that Air Power rules armor?????

Just think that it is ironic considering your posts to me in the "If Germany won in Russia Thread" images/smilies/default/tongue.gif
I'm sorry Jimbo, but I just can't hack it any more. I am disgusted by the way you talked to Sapper. This man fought in WW2, he was at Arnhem and all the way through. So how dare you say he doesn't know what he is talking about? He saw it and knew that at the time it was the only chance. You were not there. I was not there. I very much doubt Angie was there, but I would rather take her word for it than yours. She at least is ready to admit if she has something wrong. You just keep banging away, even after your argument has been proven wrong.
I beleive you owe Sapper an apology.
And as to opening a ten mile corridor with heavy bombers, how exactly?
The RAF were specifically told not to bomb within a ten mile parallel line to the front. This was to protect our tropps, as the top brass were well aware that unforeseen winds could cause bombs to go absolutely anywhere. Would you prefer us to have dropped a few hundred tons of HE on your heads?
And what about accuracy? The Allies were perfectley capable at this time of accurate bombing, and mostly at night as well. But what of the USAAF? Sorry Jimbo, but they were just naff at accuracy. They would have blown your own people straight into local folk lore. As they said at the time "The RAf precision bomb area targets, but America area bombs precison targets".
As such, Market Garden had to happen to take the important bridges, and only Arnhem failed because essentially the paras could no longer hold out without food and water from the air drops, that were being shot down by the ack-ack and fighters. Please remember that the FW190's (Butcher Birds) were still trading at this time, as well as even faster fighters.
As such, Market Garden was a success. It just happens that we didn't manage to take Arnhem.
Because of this I never had the chance to know my great-unce, a very good man. His 18 year old widow was left caring for a two month old baby. And I say that we had to try at Arnhem. And as to XXX Corps fannying around? I don't bloody think so. They got there as fast as they can, but armour on single track roads takes tims to move. Yes, a tank can do 29mph. In clear countryside with no obstacles. That is never the reality in war. So get your head out of the sand and aply a little common sense to the issue. I know this is a rare commodity in America at the moment, but DO IT!
And I expect an apology to Sapper before I revisit this forum. Else I shall personally come over there and start breaking bits of your appendages.
Sweet dreams.
images/smilies/default/mad.gif
sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

Simplistic in the extreme Jim. It goes to show how little real understanding of war you have, (Thankfully) and just what it is like. In war men are killed, no one wants that, in fact we all thought that it would not happen to us!
taking your ideas forward about the loss of life, If we were to go along the idea of not losing life there would have been no D day, or come to that any other battles.

In war, men on both sides are killed, and maimed, (sadly, I do know about that!) Every battle that you are involved in...everytime you stand ln the "Start" line you have no idea of what will happen, you have no idea if the battle will go your way,,or if you will take a terrible beating...It did happen.

Just try listening to the voices of experience, of those that lived through those traumatic times and lived with the day to day horrors, the whole electric atmosphere that is in the air, the everpresent dangers.

take one simple fact; we had beaten the enemy, and had him on the run all the way across France Belgium and Holland, Now it seems perfectly sensible to me to chase him until we could go no further.

Or should we have stopped and said "Thats enough for one day" He was persued until we could go no further, and that was at Arnhem. No one knows in battle what the outcome will be. If we had not gone in with Paras all the way up through Holland, we would have had to have a infantry slogging match where many thousands would lose their lives. It was was a great thrust, but one that petered out at Arnhem.
What you are saying, is that we should have stopped somewhere along the line. Then What?
sapper
I bow to you Sapper. I only wish I knew you personally, I am sure you have some truly amazing stories to tell.
And as to Jimbo. I think it is time you went to Arnhem, stood in the middle of the graveyard and explained your argments to the men lying there.
sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

Thanks for all that friends, but let me add a bit here. First...There is nothing special about me, thousands of men had got their knees brown long before I came on the scene....I am just a very ordinary soldier with no great claim to fame. I experienced the fortunes of war, luckily, despite being wounded twice, always on the winning side.
Again there is nothing very unusual about being wounded on two occasions, oddly enough, it was quite common. so again, nothing out of the ordinary.

What is extraordinary, is that being quite severely wounded, and 80 years of age, I am able to write and post about those times. That is simply because of my ancestral Genes.

An old friend said once, "Brian my old fruit , we have a duty to write and speak about those times while we are able, when we go, it all goes with us"

What I am doing is to keep the memory alive of all those that fell in battle, nothing else. No need for apologies. None at all.
Best regards to all here.

Sapper
images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
To Jimbo,
I spent about an hour working on a reply to your last post and then did something stupid and lost it before posting. I am not going to repeat all that work.

You are particularly wrong about the German order of battle, especially 9 and 10 SS Panzer and deployments in Nijmegen.

I suggest you read Kershaw's "It Never Snows in September", which will correct you on these points.

I maintain that the bridges at Nijmegen could have been taken by a coup de main on the afternoon of 17th and then held until 19th/20th against the opposition then in action.

But I would just finish with a word about your style. You often seem to answer facts and opinions with polemics, which will not do. Think about it.
Here is an Order of Battle for the SS forces in the Market Garden area on 17th September 1944 should anyone be interested:
It was researched by a poster on another forum and so I take no credit for this and thank him for the info:

9 SS-Panzer-Divison "Hohenstaufen"
(operational theater: Arnhem - Oosterbeek - Nijmegen - Elst)

42 Armoured cars (most half track)
2 Jagdpanzers
3 Mobelwagen (mobile FLAK full track)
1 FLAK half track

10 SS-Panzer-Divison "Frundsberg"
(operational theater: Arnhem - Elst)
8 Panzer Kampf Wagen V (Panther)
12 Panzer Kampf Wagen IV
4 STUG III
7 armoured cars, half track
1 Panzer Spee Wagen P204
1 FLAK (vierling) half track

Panzer Ersatz Regiment "Bielefeld" (Panzer Kampfgruppe Mielke)
(operational theater: Arnhem - Elst)
2 Panzer Kampf Wagen IV
6 Panzer Kampf Wagen III

Schwere Panzer Kompanie Hummel
(operational theater: Arnhem - Elst)
12 Panzer Kampf Wagen VI (Tiger 1)

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506
(operational theater: Oosterbeek - Elst)
28 Panzer Kampf Wagen VI (Tiger 2)

Sturmgeschutz Brigade 280
(operational theater: Arnhem - Oosterbeek)
7 STUG III
3 STUH 42G

Panzer Kompanie 244
(operational theater: Oosterbeek)
1 Panzer Kampfwagen 35S
2 Panzer Kampfwagen B2
14 Flammpanzer

9th S.S. Recce Battalion
(S.S. Capt. Victor Eberhardt Graebner)
This unit consisted of 40 half tracks and armoured cars and approximately 400 men, less ten vehicles, which were retained as a reserve. These were sent south to Nijmegen on the 17th. This was the unit which made the futile charge across Arnhem bridge on the morning of Monday the 18th September.

S.S. Pzr Grenadier Battalion 16
(S.S. Capt J. Krafft)
This Battalion was situated in the woods at Wolfheze. It was three companies strong plus attached units. Forward elements were in position to fire on the gliders on LZ 'S'.

I should also point out that the 2 SS divisions were but a shadow of their former selves. Hohenstaufen had gone from a Division to a Kampfgruppe being of only 6,000 troops as opposed to the full compliment of 18,000. now admittedly these troops were EXTREMELY battle hardened but there were very few left. I will endevour to find out the strength of SS Frundsberg and post it here if I can find it.
A question - I think on the fundamentals you will find in the records that these are two tied operations each planned around the other. It is not Operation Market Garden, it is Operation Market - Garden, two distict parts?? Operation Market would have been mostly planned around the Airborne side and Operation Garden was the ground element, am I right?
With regards to the casualty figures, I found a list and I wonder if it is complete?
Casualties KIA WIA MIA POW Total Grand Total
German 4- 8 000 ? ? 13 000 13 000
British 6 484 851 6 450 13 785
American 3 542 4 000 18 196
Polish 378 411
It is likely that whatever we may argue that the people of Holland were those who paid the highest toll.
Regards
MG
sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

You are right about the Market and the Garden. The people of Holland did pay a expensive price for freedom. One of the reasons being the Low Countries Winter. any movement was immediately bogged down, that had the effect of sentencing the Dutch people still under nazi rule to another winter of captivity.
There is no doubt that they were hungry, later Lancasters loaded with food came in low and dropped it over Holland with the cooperation of the enemy.

We did all we could to help with the children and the adults where it was possible, for they were hard times for troops and civilians. Any civilians employed by the forces at that time were always paid and "FED" always a troops hot meal shared.

Often the roads, never built for heavy military traffic, just sank into the ground and the mud oozed up. Fox holes dug quickly filled with water and then froze.YUK
Sapper,

Invasion money?

We had just captured Weert, bit dodgy as we were more or less on our own there.
I went in to a local shop and bought something, the Lady asked me, was the money good? "Yes of course" (Invasion money was looked on with deep suspicion by the local population!) Ah! though she was not too sure, because she gave me the change for a two and half Guilder note in one cent pieces, I went outside and there was a little boy sitting against the wall, I took off his Dutch cap and poured 240 one cent pieces into it, at that time it was worth a weeks wages. Now, I have a feeling that the little boy will remember the English soldier who gave him quite a lot of money.
Sapper
Quite impressive with the stats Gotthard! Do you have a way to determine the density and locations of Flak cannons there? I would be curious to know those.
(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 8 2005, 03:54 AM) [post=42821]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Jimbo
Are you arguing in defense of armor?????????? You are saying that Airborne Troops need Armor?? I thought you said that Air Power rules armor?????

Just think that it is ironic considering your posts to me in the "If Germany won in Russia Thread" images/smilies/default/tongue.gif
[/b]
Well, look who! My, my, you just seem to want to make it so easy on me Gotthard. In Market Garden, the BIGGEST problem with the radios is that they had little range and the wrong frequencies so they couldn't contact air they desperately needed (Ouch!). But the saving grace is that there were no German fighters when the lifts of paras were approaching the bridges (phew!). Glad you brought that up so I didn't have to. Now, the lucky thing is that the Germans didn't have any TAC air or the single line column of 30th Corps coming up the road would not have made it to Einhoven. That would be like the "Basra Highway of Death" in Iraq in 1991 and the Allied forces would have understood what Rommel was so distraught about and why he resigned the war in 1943. Thanks for your interjection. I sometimes forget just how dominant and crucial air power is to winning. Sometimes I get the impression that ground forces play a more significant role than they really do. Jump in anytime!
Well mosquito,
I appreciate sapper for his service too but that does not mean he gets a free pass from disagreement. Nobody rides for free here. Got news for you mosquito, sapper wasn't everywhere and only knows what happened where he was at. In addition people that were there may have some insight into a small window of the war but they also have to deal with potential personal biases which are common to humans (yes even those in WWII).

As for Angie, I often give her opinion higher regard than mine too so I can't blame you for tending to believe her. But as smart as she is, she gets no free pass either. But I find she is a big girl (not literally) and can hold her own with the likes of me. "Yes men" might give an ego a boost but they do not help anyone and actually insult by inferring that a person is not mature enough to handle challenges to their beliefs.

If I have said something to sapper that was unfair then I would gladly apologize for it. But disagreement does not warrant apology.

I will ignore your little diatribe against Americans and common sense. And no, you don't need to apologize, I too am a big boy.
(sapper @ Dec 8 2005, 04:27 AM) [post=42826]Simplistic in the extreme Jim. It goes to show how little real understanding of war you have, (Thankfully) and just what it is like. In war men are killed, no one wants that, in fact we all thought that it would not happen to us! [/b]
Sapper, all due respect, I thought the objective of having an understanding of war was to make sure that the men killed were the enemy and to minimize you own. You said everyone knew it was high risk. Too high of a risk is not bravery, but foolishness. I certainly don't blame the guys that do it, but you get a bunch of your men killed by executing a foolish plan, you will have all kinds of trouble getting the survivors that watched it to trust you.
(sapper @ Dec 8 2005, 04:27 AM) [post=42826]taking your ideas forward about the loss of life, If we were to go along the idea of not losing life there would have been no D day, or come to that any other battles. [/b]
I think you miss the point here sapper. No one said you can't take a risk or should not take risks but you must evaluate all of your options and pick the best one. My personal belief was that Market Garden was political. It was Monty's attempt to get his name in the headlines as he was falling far behind Patton in getting to Berlin.

(sapper @ Dec 8 2005, 04:27 AM) [post=42826]In war, men on both sides are killed, and maimed, (sadly, I do know about that!) Every battle that you are involved in...everytime you stand ln the "Start" line you have no idea of what will happen, you have no idea if the battle will go your way,,or if you will take a terrible beating...It did happen. [/b]
That may be true but it still does not have anything to do with the idea of taking an improbable risk when you didn't need to.

(sapper @ Dec 8 2005, 04:27 AM) [post=42826]Just try listening to the voices of experience, of those that lived through those traumatic times and lived with the day to day horrors, the whole electric atmosphere that is in the air, the everpresent dangers.

take one simple fact; we had beaten the enemy, and had him on the run all the way across France Belgium and Holland, Now it seems perfectly sensible to me to chase him until we could go no further. [/b]
Sapper, even if the objectives had succeeded, you would have had the forces used in the Ardennes campaign coming up to face you off on a small front while you waited to capture Antwerp which had to be done first to enable the rest of the Allies to move and to keep supporting you all the way up in Holland. An army goes nowhere without supplies. You should know that sapper.

(sapper @ Dec 8 2005, 04:27 AM) [post=42826]Or should we have stopped and said "Thats enough for one day" He was persued until we could go no further, and that was at Arnhem. No one knows in battle what the outcome will be. If we had not gone in with Paras all the way up through Holland, we would have had to have a infantry slogging match where many thousands would lose their lives. It was was a great thrust, but one that petered out at Arnhem.
What you are saying, is that we should have stopped somewhere along the line. Then What?
[/b]
I don't get this argument. My statement was that they moved too slow and if that was a tactical error then Hossock didn't carry the mail, but if that was inherent then Market Garden was a doomed plan strategically and should have never have been executed or agreed to.

You don't bet your life on a 10 number lottery.
You don't win a 10 number lottery by just getting 9 numbers correct.
In war, there is no virtue in winning second place.

(angie999 @ Dec 8 2005, 07:11 AM) [post=42831]To Jimbo,

I spent about an hour working on a reply to your last post and then did something stupid and lost it before posting. I am not going to repeat all that work.

You are particularly wrong about the German order of battle, especially 9 and 10 SS Panzer and deployments in Nijmegen.

I suggest you read Kershaw's "It Never Snows in September", which will correct you on these points.

I maintain that the bridges at Nijmegen could have been taken by a coup de main on the afternoon of 17th and then held until 19th/20th against the opposition then in action.

But I would just finish with a word about your style. You often seem to answer facts and opinions with polemics, which will not do. Think about it.
[/b]
I will wait for your responses. But as to your comment about style, wasn't that my complaint about you, that you were posting your own personal dogma on this subject?
Jimbo,
Having read your last few posts, and despite not wanting to fall again into "personal" argument, I feel compelled to say this: you are of course quite right in your observations on human nature and the propensity we all display toward personal bias, etc. However, this site is designed to propogate history, not as a means of debating homo-sapien weaknesses. If you were as spot on in your knowledge of the facts of WW2 as you are in your knowledge of the frailties of the human condition, you would garner an awful lot more respect! Sorry, Jimbo, but it's true...
sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

There seems little purpose in posting more on this subject, This man has a view that is not going to be chsnged. I readily admit that being in a theatre of war does not allow a overall view of what was going on elswhere, But we were surprisingly kept up to date, (reports pinned up somewhere or other) with regular reports on how the war was going from different theatres of the war.
I dont know about the USA army, but we did know what and where we were going, (not all the times) for sometimes we would be hauled off quickly

That we had our defeats goes without saying , every army has them, But this idea that the USA army never did? is pushing the bounds of the imagination somewhat. If that is what is thought? I can put the matter right very quickly.
Sapper
(adamcotton @ Dec 8 2005, 04:28 PM) [post=42868]Jimbo,
Having read your last few posts, and despite not wanting to fall again into "personal" argument, I feel compelled to say this: you are of course quite right in your observations on human nature and the propensity we all display toward personal bias, etc. However, this site is designed to propogate history, not as a means of debating homo-sapien weaknesses. If you were as spot on in your knowledge of the facts of WW2 as you are in your knowledge of the frailties of the human condition, you would garner an awful lot more respect! Sorry, Jimbo, but it's true...
[/b]

Well Adam, seems I am offered a Catch-22 here. On one hand if I had intimated that it was personal and that sapper might have a bias then I would have been flamed by those who get indignant when a veterans are fallible. But on the other hand, if I qualify it by saying that WWII vets are humans and might have a bias (being much less offensive) I get an off the cuff rebuke like yours here.

I don't get this homage thing. Is it an English thing or is it a history thing or what? Does one need to bow as though he were in the presence of the Almighty when someone claiming themselves to be a historian speaks their opinion, published or posted, or someone that idolizes historians and has chosen their favorites and cites them as gods walking amongst the mortal rabble, who are satisfied demonizing someone that doesn't do likewise? In case you haven't read much by "historians" you might be surprised to find that historians are in the habit of disagreeing with each other and blasting each other like they were dogs for disagreeing with their "dogma". Often, what is supposed to be fact turns out to be the result of hearsay, urban legend or their own simple opining.

I state my opinion because I am a philosopher and a logician at heart and an engineer by trade. I like understanding the hows and whys of things things and thinking outside the box if necessary rather than just taking them at face value just because my favorite historian who disagrees with "everybody and their momma" has that view of an issue. That's your only defense against propagating a bunch of hoo-hah that has been passed of for generations as history. There is no way we can go back and interview the people that made the decisions and find out what they knew other than read their own writings. Having someone read their writings I see they too disagree with each other so for me to think that history is solid or anywhere near it is naïve and ludicrous. There are several people on this site that I respect as much as any historian I have ever read because they have themselves a good foundation, but if you think I will take their words as gospel and bend my thinking to match theirs when there are sometimes elephants in the logical living room, you don't understand me very well.

What of this site Adam? Is it just to "propagate" history or is it to discuss it and ponder it? If it were just to propagate history then it would simply be a hierarchical database like Wikipedia that has some kind of historian "majority text" algorithm of determining what is correct and what is suspect. Someone that believes something is not afraid to defend it. To get indignant at someone questioning what you believe to be fact is truly unbecoming. If this site were just a popularity context where my objective was respect even at the sacrifice of what I believe then I would probably be near last place. But then again, why do people show up here? Is it not to "discuss" history and hear ideas and debate them? Would people with an aversion to debate or defending their view, ever find anything of interest here?

Maybe you can post a threat that can be stickyed that tell what views are fair game and which are forbidden so I don't try to eat a sacred cow here. While you are at it maybe you can post which historians are "correct" and which ones are not so I can keep my "facts" spot-on by sticking to these "approved" historians. But, if you think I am worried about people respecting me here, I would have to respond to that by saying that I could only concern myself with people that are tolerant of the differing opinions and views of others, otherwise, why should I care? Respect that is of any value is always mutual.