Talk:Operation Market Garden

Disadvantages of this article

What were the goals of this military operation? This remains unclear. Only the results of the operation are described. This is not enough to understand the historical event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the goals of this military operation were very ambitious. In fact, the goal was to "end the war by Christmas", taking control of the main part of Germany and its capital Berlin. thus, it had a political goal-to ensure the political dominance of the United States and Britain in the post-war world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually the point of Market Garden was not for XXX corps to get across the Rhine and then charge for Berlin (which is obviously impossible - it's a single armoured corps) but for 21st Army Group as a whole be in a position (across the Lower Rhine) to form the northern arm of a pincer movement to encircle the Ruhr, cutting off the main armament producing area of Germany - something that eventually happened (see Ruhr Pocket). Still an ambitious goal, but not as crazy as a single corps charging for Berlin. --Shimbo (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow. It is not necessary to bring the opponent's idea to the point of absurdity. Operation "MG" was aimed at solving large problems. The crossing of the river Rhine was only stage 1. I insist that the goals were set very significant. Today we know the results. But what did they know then in September 1944? Successfully made the landing and in 2 months liberated France and went half the way to Berlin. Why not set a goal to pass this second half in 2 months? To do this, you need to cross the river Rhine. This is where the operation "MG" comes from. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I can quote Montgomery's memoirs (translated from Russian): I will End this Chapter with another quote about the battle of Arnhem from Chester Wilmot's book ("the Battle for Europe", p. 528). Here's what he wrote:

"Unfortunately, the two main weaknesses of the allied command-the British caution about losses and the persistent reluctance of the Americans to concentrate their forces [315] - had a detrimental effect on the course of the operation, which was and could be a decisive blow in the battle in the West. There was no time to think about the price or the prestige of competing commanders. What was at stake was nothing less than the possibility of occupying the Ruhr and ending the war quickly, with all the consequences that followed for the future of Europe."

From my — biased-point of view, if the operation had received proper support from the very beginning, if we had received the air and ground forces and resources necessary to carry it out, it would have been successful, despite my mistakes, or bad weather, or the presence of the 2nd SS Panzer corps in the Arnhem area. I remain an unrepentant supporter of Market garden".

(Россиянин2019) and 93.81.221.43 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Goal of the operation

Utilizing official histories from top down to corps level:

• Ellis, Victory in the West Vol. II, p. 49: "...as stated in Field-Marshal Montgomery's directive issued three days before..." the operation's immediate goals were to "secure crossings over the Rhine and Mass in the general area Arnhem-Nijmegen-Grave" to allow the Second Army "to establish itself in strength on a line between Zwolle (on the Zuider zee) and Arnhem, facing east with deep bridgeheads east of the Ijssel river." In the grand scheme of things "It was to be the beginning of operations with the United States First Army designed to isolate and surround the Ruhr."

A diagram on the previous page shows the main thrust up along Hell's Highway, with the main elements of Second Army intending to drive towards Hamm and meet up with an American thrust (coming from between Cologne and Bonn) to the south. Additional advances would be made by Second Army towards the River Ems to establish a bridgehead near Osnabruck. First Canadian Army would move to clear Second Army's flank to at least the Amsterdam area.

• MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, p. 6: "Allied strategy, as expressed in pre-DDay planning ... looked toward the ultimate objective of Berlin; but on the way the Allies wanted an economic objective, which ... "would rapidly starve Germany of the means to continue the war." This was the Ruhr industrial area, the loss of which, together with Belgium and Holland, would deprive Germany of 65 percent of its -production of crude steel and 56 percent of its coal. The widespread deployment of the Allied armies on 11 September reflected General Eisenhower's pre-D-Day decision to go after the Ruhr and Berlin on a broad front."

p. 120: "...MARKET-GARDEN had two major objectives: to get Allied troops across the Rhine and to capture the Ruhr. Three major advantages were expected to accrue: ( I) cutting the land exit of those Germans remaining in western Holland; (2) outflanking the West Wall, and (3) positioning British ground forces for a subsequent drive into Germany along the North German Plain". MacDonald does not appear to include a southern thrust, but does talk in-depth about First and Third Armies advances towards the West Wall with the overall goal of capturing the Ruhr.

• Randel, A short history of 30 Corps, p. 31: "...30 Corps... learned of the ambitious attempt to be made to thrust northwards to the Zuider Zee [later referred to as the Zuider Zee crossings]...hereby cutting off communications between Germany and the Low Countries."
• Gill/Groves, Club Route in Europe: 30 Corps, p. 69: "...another spectacular dash, this time Northwards into Holland, and it was hoped that this next operation would carry us right through to the Zuider Zee, thus allowing the Second Army to debouche into the North German Plain before winter set in, and cut off the Germans in Western Holland."
• Jackson, 8 Corps, p. 151: "The official intention … was "to place Second Army … astride the Rivers Maas, Waal and Neder Rijn on the general axis Grave-Nijmegen-Arnhem, and to dominate the country between the Rhine and the Zuyder Zee, thus cutting communication between German and Holland.""

p. 152: "8 Corps orders were to establish a bridgehead over the Escaut Canal near Lille St. Hubert, capture and dominate the area Leende and Weert, seize Helmond and over-run the surrounding area, then advance north-east in line with the general plan and as ordered by Second Army.

Hopefully this will help clear up the overall intention (get over the rivers and cripple Germany by capturing the Ruhr), and the sources are there to be cited in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Operation "MG" was aimed at solving far-reaching goals. This is crossing the river Rhine, bypassing the fortified Siegfried line from the North, and capturing Dutch ports. Relying on supplies from these ports, it was possible to develop an offensive deep into Germany, covering the Ruhr and further up to the capital Berlin: "subsequent drive into Germany along the North German Plain". 178.155.64.26 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Soviet command also thought about this version of events, how to rush to Berlin. Only later, when the advancing troops reached the Oder river. The Oder was the last big river on the way to Berlin from the East, and the distance is less than 60 km, not 400 km (from Rhine). And still Zhukov and Stalin did not give permission to go-ahead for a dash to Berlin in February 1945. After the war, General Chuikov also spoke a lot on this topic. He said that if they had given him permission, his 8th army in February 1945 would have broken through the front with one blow and stormed into Berlin and the war would have ended sooner. But it was not approved in 1945 or the 1960s. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Per the sources, a run for Berlin was not on the cards. Describing Berlin as the ultimate goal of Market Garden is not supported. Setting up for a subsequent drive into the North German Plain does not equal a full out narrow thrust advance. Moreover the British and American official histories are in agreement that, if successful, the next major operation would be against the Ruhr (an economic and military victory over a symbolic of political one).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the word "Berlin" was not in the cards. 400 km is not 60 km. No one wanted to look like a fool if the operation failed. Like Hitler in 1941 with Moscow. But in the long term, this (movement to the capital) was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me remind you and everyone that the question of attacking Berlin was discussed later. Eisenhower himself writes directly about this in his memoirs, that he insisted that the military actions were aimed at encircling the German military group in the Ruhr. That is, the issue was discussed seriously. This is all British again, on Churchill's side. Churchill kept thinking about what would happen after the war, not about the war itself. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Q: "What were the goals of this military operation?"

A: Per the sources, to get over a series of river obstacles to facilitate later operations to clear the Netherlands, encircle the Ruhr, and eventually to advance further into Germany.

Anything beyond that is essentially unsupported conjecture (unless there is a reference) or off topic (i.e. grand strategy outside the realm of Market Garden, or British post war thinking). This isn't a forum. If you are looking for a more wide ranging discussion, you may want to visit a more appropriate place to do so.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer: I think you are overconfident in your opponent's accusations. I can cite sources that will be difficult to dispute. For example: "5. I consider that the best objective is Ruhr, and thence on to Berlin by the northern tour. On that route are the ports, and on that route we can use our sea power to the best advantages. On other routes we would merely contain as many German forces as we could". Having stated his argument, Field Marshal Montgomery noted alternatives... " 93.81.220.91 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC) and (Россиянин2019)

Taking Pogue out of context does not distract from the fact that Berlin was not the ultimate goal of Market Garden.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer:

I don't impose my opinion. But, it is written Berlin. BERLIN. Not Cologne, Hamburg, or Bonn. BERLIN. You can think what you want, but Montgomery is talking about BERLIN.

Yet sources quoting his written directive issued prior to the launch of the operation do not state Berlin was an objective of Market Garden. Your flogging a dead horse at this point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer: I'm not trying to impose my opinion on you. But Montgomery was not sitting on a dead horse when he wrote about Berlin. About Berlin. BERLIN. Once again, B-E-R-L-I-N. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of the American and British official histories, quoting Montgomery, stating Berlin was not the objective of Market Garden. With the exception of histories wrote by staff members of the Corps involved, also quoting Montgomery, all saying Berlin was not the objective of Market Garden. You have yet to bring a piece of evidence to table to state that it was i.e. your continued opinion that it was is a waste of time, without evidence to support it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In particular Tedder in a contemporaneous letter to Portal, quoted in Tedder's autobiography says of the 10 September meeting "... the advance to Berlin was not discussed as a serious issue, nor do I think it was so intended. The real issue is the degree of priority given the American Corps operating on Montgomery's right flank, and the extent to which Montgomery controls its operations."86.151.26.10 (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Dear interlocutor, we have fully expressed our position. In any case, we began to understand each other's positions better. On this positive note, I propose to end this topic. :)93.81.221.139 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Россиянин2019 and 178.155.64.26 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional potentially useful information for the article

Casualties

Unsure how this would be best added, considering the table already in the article with extensive notes.

Charles B. MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, p. 199:

• Airborne Corps losses of 11,850 (968 killed, 2,640 wounded, and 8,242 missing) thru to 25 September:

Corp HQ: 4 killed and 8 missing

1st AB: 286 killed, 135 wounded, and 6,041 missing

1st Pol Bde: 47 killed, 158 wounded, and 173 missing

Brit Glider pilots: 59 killed, 35 wounded, and 644 missing

38 Group RAF: 6 killed, 23, wounded, and 184 missing

82nd AB: 215 killed, 790 wounded, and 427 missing

101st AB: 315 killed, 1,248 wounded, and 547 missing

US Glider pilots: 12 killed, 36 wounded, and 74 missing

IX US Troop: 16 killed, 204 wounded, and 82 missing.

• 30 Corps: 1,480 casualties, and 70 tanks
• 8 and 12 Corps: 3, 874 casualties, and 18 tanks
• 144 transport aircraft

Staff, 21st Army Group (already cited in article), full quote:

• "[point/paragraph] 125, The enemy lost 16,000 prisoners and 30 tanks and SP guns destroyed; 159 of his aircraft were also destroyed.

Total casualties of the Airborne Corps were 9,600, of which the Brit element was 6986 including 322 killed."

Outcome

Forest C. Pogue, The Supreme Command, p. 288: "A German analysis, captured by the Allies after the operation, concluded that the Al- lies’ “chief mistake was not to have landed the entire First British Airborne Division at once rather than over a period of 3 days and that a second airborne division was not dropped in the area west of Arnhem.”"

"Operational failure" OR "Failure of the Operation"?

Some people try to convince you that it's the same thing. And give the first definition to denote the result of a military operation. But it's not the same thing, is it? I think so. If this is supposedly the same thing, then I think there will be no objection when I put the second definition? Isn't that right? 178.155.64.26 (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

German victory or "See the Aftermath section" see Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. (my bolding). "Operational failure" = hair-splitting contrary to the template rule. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

For me, Market Garden was a defeat. Both "Operational failure" and "Failure of the Operation" are weasel words.Smallchief (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

After doing a quick scan of infoboxes of a few dozen pages listed at List of military engagements of World War II, virtually all results listed the outcome as "x victory" (ie: "Axis victory" or "British victory", etc.). A few instances were more editorial, such as "Decisive Allied victory" or "strategic or tactical victory for x and/or propaganda or morale victory for y (paraphrased)). The were a few exceptions, that would state "x defeat" instead. And of course some instances stated "indecisive" where appropriate.
If we were to follow the general practice, as well as the template guideline noted above by Keith-264, this result should be noted as "German victory", but that might be too simplistic here, and perhaps a "See result" note/link would be a better solution. (jmho) - wolf 21:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

extended discussion

I think that the phrase "operational failure" is an attempt to downplay the scale of the defeat, to present the case in such a way that it was "almost a victory". As the same Montgomery wrote, "the operation was 90% successful." But this is not the case. It was a defeat. If the goal of the operation is not achieved, then it is defeat. The logic is clear. As in the winter of 1941, the Germans were defeated near Moscow. Even if they passed more than 1000 km from the border, even if they moved only 150 km away from Moscow and held a large territory. But it was a defeat. "THE FAILURE OF THE OPERATION". 93.81.211.111 (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it's how the sources label the operation (see the above for an assortment, although not everything ever written), not what we feel or think.

I suggested "see aftermath", and that was shotdown as well as several alternatives that would elaborate along the lines of the sources.

As always, I suggest people being more sources to the table if "see aftermath" is not good enough.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To note, I think labelling the article a "German victory" goes against the sources, most notably the German official history. Based off the sources, I think most are in agreement that the operation does not fit neatly into a win/loss format. The Germans stopped the effort, but failed to achieve their own goals. The tactical and strategic impact of the fighting has been disputed for both by historians i.e. was the land worth it etc., The hunger winter etc. My preference would be for see aftermath with all points laid out as best as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already spoken to you on this topic and have come to the conclusion that you are not in the mood for consensus. You want to prove that it was "almost a victory" for MG. I understand your wish, but I don't agree with it. I do not want to play with words, to call, for example, "defeat" as "operational failure", they say, "almost victory". This is a play on words, it does not matter, it serves only to understand the interlocutor. I would put just the words "failure", "defeat". 93.81.208.111 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a list of sources above, which is by no means extensive. Pleases, provide additional sources, so a new consensus can be reached. As I repeat myself: what do the sources say?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that there is already a question of some preferences based on their understanding of patriotism, and not the search for truth.93.81.208.111 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

An ad hominem is not the basis for consensus. The American, British, and German official histories have been quoted above; they all roughly same thing. A selection of sources, which is by no means extensive, are quoted above. Do you have additional sources to provide? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you in the sense that conversation becomes meaningless when it is understood not as a search for truth, but as a kind of manifestation of patriotism. From the experience of communicating with you, I think this is your position. Word game. "Operational failure", not "failure of operation". None of this makes sense. 93.81.208.111 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

What do the sources say?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you forgot, but we talked in the topic "Disadvantages of this article". 93.81.208.111 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As I read the eleven sources cited in the preceding discussion, seven of them call Market Garden an allied "failure" or "defeat" and four emphasize the allied success of capturing some Dutch territory rather than calling MG a total defeat. If we're looking for consensus, it seems to me that the consensus is that MG was a German victory -- and should be declared as such. The aftermath section can discuss the positive and negative aspects of MG capturing some Dutch territory.Smallchief (talk)

To be fair, only one of those sources outright uses the term "defeat", the rest 'beat around the bush'. A second uses 'defeat' only in the context of Arnhem. Likewise, none of them describe the operation as a German victory. Hence my position of seeing what additional sources state, and "see aftermath".EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If the projectile only penetrated 90 mm of armor out of 100 mm of armor and got stuck, it means that the projectile did not penetrate the armor. If the allies struck, captured 2 bridges, and the 3th could not-then this is a defeat. You can rearrange words in different ways when defining events, but it doesn't matter, except for propaganda. 93.81.208.111 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Past debate on similar subjects resulted in arguments along the lines of a source does not specifically state something, we - as editors - cannot "read between the lines". We present what sources state, and allow the readers to form an opinion. Based off that, and various wiki policy, I argue that the sources do not state the Germans won. I highlight that they explain a complicated situation on a tactical, strategic, and humanitarian level, and that "see aftermath" is the best option (based off current sources).

I also feel that further debate about what historians mean by their choice of language is not helpful (since we have to present what they state, not what they mean). I contend, as every time this is brought up, that additional sources be consulted and quoted so a true consensus can be developed. I feel that the anon and other editors should assist in this, in order to do so.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is original research to interpret sources saying "Allied failure" to mean the same as "German victory." And that is what 7 out of the 11 sources cited above say -- and the other four only refer to a partial Allied success. I think the consensus is: Operation Market Garden was a German victory. Smallchief (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem here is quite clear. Every military operation has a clearly defined goal. If it is achieved, then it is a victory. If not, then defeat. Of course, life is not so simple. There is, for example, such a concept as"Pyrrhic victory". But still, it is. I also think that this is still not a solution, but only a statement of the problem. 93.81.208.111 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Well, this has been quite a lengthy debate, but perhaps it's time to try and bring this to an end and determine if there is a consensus here. Again, we are discussing what should be entered into the "Result" parameter in the infobox. It would seem there are three options;

• A) "German victory"
• B) "Allied defeat"
• C) "Result see:" (with link to a subsection describing the outcome of the operation)
  

This is a simple straw pole. Just list one of the options with a brief note explaining the reason for your support. If you feel it should be something outher than one of these three choices, then just put "other", and explain what you think the result should be noted as. - wolf 05:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• My choice is b) "Allied defeat". The attacking side was the allies, so it was their defeat in the first place. It seems that it is necessary to add the section "goals of operation" to the article. 93.81.211.111 (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• See Aftermath as that is the recommended result in less than clear-cut cases. Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• I think that's not exactly what's needed.93.81.211.111 (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist:, just to clarify, are you opting for "C) See result", with a link to "Aftermath"? Or "other" with "See Aftermath" instead of "See result"? - wolf 09:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild in the Infobox the relevant line is Result, so it doesn't make sense to say see Result, I'm saying Result should be: see Aftermath. Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist: my bad, I don't think I was clear. Option "C" would look like this; "Result: see Aftermath" does that work for you? - wolf 09:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild yes, thanks. Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: See [[Operation Market Garden#Aftermath|Aftermath]] section Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option C. There is no clear cut win/lose scenario for this operation, per the sources. If we are going to 'read between the lines' of sources, then we have to do some healthy mental gymnastics to explain how - for example - the German official history would call this both a German victory and a German defeat, using the process of the prior discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have been reading this discussion but not contributed before. I agree with EnigmaMcmxc that this did not have a clear win/lose outcome.

The main Allied objective (crossing the Rhine into Germany) clearly was not achieved. But the Allies did gain a significant chunk of territory (from which subsequent advances, including across the Rhine were launched), so I don't see how this can be called a German victory/Allied defeat.

So my 'vote' would be for option C. FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option A or B: The eleven sources cited above characterize the results of Operation Market Garden as (1) "failure;" (2) "failed;" (3) "failure;" (4) "epic cock-up;" (5) "failure;" (6) "partly unsuccessful;" (7) "failure;" (8) "failure;" (9) "tactically immense value, strategically a blind alley;" (10) "useful results;" (11) "failed."

Moreover, a point I've made before is that wikipedias in other languages, including German, French, and Spanish, call Market Garden a German victory or Allied defeat. Is history as written in English to say something different? And, yeah, I know we're not supposed to cite wikipedias, but if everybody except English speakers thinks MG was a Germany victory, maybe we should examine why we are arguing about the outcome of MG. Smallchief (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• C) "Result see: Aftermath"' - while this was ultimately a failure on the part of the Allies, and therefore a success on the part of Germany, a simple "German victory" or "Allied defeat" is not sufficient. Going by either the info in the article or the debate on this talk page, more is needed. Readers are best served with option C. - wolf 18:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The view from Russia

I will try to fill in the lack of opinions from Russian sources. For example,

"ВЕЛИКАЯ ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННАЯ ВОЙНА 1941–1945 ГОДОВ В ДВЕНАДЦАТИ ТОМАХ". "THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR OF 1941-1945 IN TWELVE VOLUMES".

Volume 5. p.36. in Russian. https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/files/VOV/tom5/VOV_Vol5.pdf

Before the Western rampart, the allies halted. The slowdown in operations against Germany was partly due to Eisenhower's decision to use the maximum forces in the North in order to seize the bridgeheads on the right Bank of the lower Rhine — on the flanks of the main fortifications of the Siegfried line, to go to their rear and subsequently cut off the German - fascist troops ' escape route from Holland. Given that the route to Berlin passed through the flat fields of Northern Germany, located across the Rhine in the North, and that in the South the mountainous and wooded terrain was not conducive to rapid progress and increased success, Eisenhower and his subordinates were United in the opinion that the main direction of attack should be the Northern part of Germany. "His targets were the Ruhr, the North German lowlands, and Berlin. First, it was necessary to master Aachen and the lower rein. Take a look at the map: Aachen and the Ruhr lie in a straight line from Normandy to Berlin» (55).

(55 Вестфаль З. и др. Роковые решения вермахта. Р-н/Д., 1999. С. 126. - 55 Westphal Z. etc. Fatal decisions of the Wehrmacht. R-n/D., 1999. P. 126.)

The tempting opportunity to quickly bypass the right flank of the German forces led Eisenhower to strike in a northerly direction towards The Zuider see (North sea), delaying the liberation of the important port of Antwerp. The plan for operation Market garden was based on the coordinated use of airborne forces and ground forces and consisted of two parts. The first was aimed at mastering the most important of the bridges over the Meuse, the Waal and the Lower Rhine. Between 17 and 30 September, 20,190 soldiers and officers were parachuted from aircraft, and 13,781 people were dropped from gliders and 905 people from aircraft to the sites prepared by the landing units of the first echelon. In addition, 5,230 tons of equipment and materials, 1,927 vehicles and 568 guns were airlifted. Aviation continued to fly continuously to supply isolated units, and made a total of over 7800 sorties. (56).

(56 Золотарев В. А. Второй фронт против Третьего рейха. С. 182. - 56 Zolotarev V. A. the Second front against the Third Reich. P. 182.)

The land operation, called "Garden", was to be deployed on a very narrow front due to the limited quality of suitable communications along the Eindhoven — Arnhem offensive axis. The operation began on September 17 with the breakthrough of the enemy's defenses 30 km East of Turnhout by the troops of the 2nd British army. Its guards Panzer division successfully advanced in a northerly direction, but met strong resistance and slowed the advance to Eindhoven, occupied by the 101st American airborne division. They joined only on September 18. (57).

(57 Warren J. Airborne Operations in World War II, European Theater. USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute. USAF Historical Studies: № 97. P. 101, 129–133.)

By September 24, the British infantry had reached the Lower Rhine in considerable force. Its artillery began to provide fire support to the 1st airborne division, surrounded on the right Bank of the river, (58) but was unable to help it gain a foothold. By that time, the units of the 1st airborne division were pushed to 900-1400 meters, and the area they captured continued to shrink. The Nazis continuously fired at the paratroopers from guns and mortars and from aircraft. On 25 September, having received the relevant order, the personnel retreated, infiltrating in small groups beyond the Lower Rhine.(59) The division suffered heavy damage: the number of killed, wounded and missing was about 8 thousand man (60). Only 2,163 of its members moved across the river. German military leaders admit: "the British The British fought with unflinching bravery, but by the end of the month, Model's efforts were crowned with success, and the 1st British airborne division ceased to exist» (61).

(58 Ibid. P. 145–146.) (59 Notes on the Operations of 21st Army Group, 6 June 1944 — 5 May 1945. № 13331. Combined Arms Research Library. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.) (60 Золотарев В. А. Второй фронт против Третьего рейха. С. 184.- Zolotarev V. A. the Second front against the Third Reich. P. 184.) (61 Вестфаль З. и др. Роковые решения вермахта. С. 126.Westphal Z. etc. Fatal decisions of the Wehrmacht. R-n/D., 1999. P. 126)

This assessment is close to the truth, although the commander of the 21st army group, British field Marshal B. Montgomery, regarded it somewhat differently, focusing on the bad weather that prevented the landing of troops, the rapid regrouping of German forces and the lack of allied forces to expand the bridgehead.(62) However, there were other drawbacks: for example, poorly organized intelligence. As a result, the British airborne division was landed in the location of German troops, and the Polish brigade was thrown far from the front line. From the first hours of the operation, surprise was lost. All this, along with the weather, determined the failure of the operation.

(62 См.: Золотарев В. А. Второй фронт против Третьего рейха. С. 185. - Zolotarev V. A. the Second front against the Third Reich. P. 185.))

---

Thus, the Russian source gives an assessment of the result of the operation unambiguously-the failure of the operation. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what changes are being proposed, and to where? Is this intended to replace current content covering the same events? What deficiencies in the current content does this address? Using Russian sources is fine, but are they to be preferred over other sources? Is there a problem with the current non-Russian sources? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 04:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is written above, it concerns defining the results of an operation as "failure of operation". I have given the Russian source only as a supplement to the other sources mentioned, for the sole purpose of showing that it is quite consistent with them. I have already written on this topic that it is easier for Russian historians to evaluate the results of MG, since we have a lot of experience in such operations. When the Germans punished us for underestimating their strength and capabilities. It was near Moscow in January-February 1942, in the Crimea in April 1942, near Kharkiv in May 1942, in Ukraine in February 1943, near Warsaw in August 1944. When the Germans inflicted strong and very painful blows. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)