Talk:Operation Market Garden/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Allied "operational failure" vs Allied defeat

Calling the outcome of Market Garden (MG) an "Allied operational failure" in the English-language wikipedia seems weasel-worded and non-neutral. Let's call MG what it was: a German victory and an Allied defeat. Non-English wikipedias are explicit regarding the outcome of MG: German wikipedia, "German victory, Allied withdrawal;" French wikipedia, "Tactical German victory;" and Dutch wikipedia, "German victory." If German, French, and Dutch wikipedias call MG a German victory, perhaps the English wikipedia is wrong? The verdict of history ideally should be the same no matter what language it is written in.

The English wikipedia article on the Battle of Arnhem is clear. Arnhem was a "German victory." If Arnhem was a German victory, how could MG be only an "operational failure" rather than an Allied defeat and a German victory? As the Allies failed to establish a foothold across the Rhine River at Arnhem, Market Garden was a failure, e.g. it was a defeat.

Following are a couple of quotes I believe are relevant to the discussion:

• "DEFEAT...The costly British defeat at Arnhem meant that Operation 'Market Garden' had been a failure, but the Allies had at least established a lodgement area from which to launch a future offensive into the German Rhineland." Imperial War Museum, [1].

• • Comment: On the questions of what MG achieved: "Market Garden had won a sixty-five mile salient that crossed five major water barriers but led nowhere....Two committed U.S. airborne divisions...would be stuck helping the British hold this soggy landscape until November" (and suffer more casualties than they had during MG)....Market Garden proved 'an epic cock-up.'" Four-fifths of the Netherlands "would endure another nine months of occupation." Rick Atkinson, The Guns at Last Light, pp. 287-288 (a major 3 volume history of WWII).

• "MARKET-GARDEN had two main objectives: first, to get across the Rhine, and second, to capture or neutralize Germany’s industrial heartland, the Ruhr Valley. The strategic rationale behind Market Garden centered on providing an opening for large ground formations to get into and maneuver on the North German Plain." The Rand Organization (a major think tank for the US government and the Department of Defense). [2]

• • Comment: Given that none of these objectives were achieved, I would conclude that MG was a defeat for the allies, not an "operational failure" which is more of an excuse than a reason. Smallchief (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. My proposal is "Operational success of the United States-Britain, Strategic victory of Hitler's Germany". 178.155.64.26 (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the above is sensible and reasonable. Despite all the various reasons given it was the opposition of the German army that stopped the Allied forces from achieving their objectives. If an attacking force fails to achieve its objectives then the operation is a failure. If the activities of the defending force are the main reason for the operational failure then defenders have achieved a victory i.e. Wikipedia article on Battle of Britain ("British Victory"). Therefore, the outcome of MG has to be that it was a German military victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.113.15 (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Not so simple. The Germans lost quite a bit of ground, Eindhoven and Nijmegen were liberated. The operational failure was that this did not lead to crossing the Rhine, but this does not make a German victory, a draw maybe.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be useful to see how other wikipedia's describe the outcome of Operation Market Garden:

German wikipedia: "German victory, allied withdrawal."

Dutch wikpedia: "German victory"

French wikipedia: "Tactical German victory"

Russian wikipedia: "German victory"

Describing Market Garden as an "Allied operational failure is (1) weasel-worded (what is an operational failure? The allies forgot to give their soldiers bullets? The allied airplanes didn't fly? etc.) ; and (2) disagrees with other wikipedias. Market Garden should be described on the English wikipedia as a "German victory." Smallchief (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Using wikipages as a source does not work. What do the reliable sources state? If I recall correctly, the last time there was an actual major effort to do this, the consensus of sources consulted was how we ended up where we are. For example, using the source at the top of this section: "an epic cock-up" does not support an Allied victory, a German victory, does not state a tactical victory, an allied withdrawal, nor operational failure. There has, over the years, large debates across the community for inferring what a source means too. So, perhaps, instead of further debate on how to word it, we collate the source conclusions to obtain consensus.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Second thought: Why not just state "See Aftermath", where a detailed account can be provided to discuss the nuance?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not using Wikipedia as a source. I'm pointing out that other relevant Wikpedia articles in other languages call Market Garden a German victory -- which means to me that the English wikipedia may be wrong in calling it an "operational failure." History ideally should be the same, no matter what language it is written in.

With regard to what the sources say, as you've listed them below, they confirm to me that Market Garden was an allied defeat. How can we conclude that Market Garden was an "operational failure" if none of the sources call it that?

Referring the result to the "aftermath" section as you propose is a bit of a cop-out, but preferable to "operational failure." Smallchief (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless the other language articles have a source, what they say is rather irrelevant. I have updated several non-English ones, where information was either translated incorrectly or not sourced. What sources do the other language wikis use to support their conclusions?

As for saying it is a "cop-out", not necessary. It reflects that there is no straight forward answer. Looking over the sources below, with the exception of one - if I am not mistaken - none state it was a "allied defeat". Such a conclusion could prove controversial and could result in an edit war from various parties. The vast majority of the sources (even the German), so far (position to change as more information comes to light) all bat around the term of "failure". Several, for example, state the operation was a strategic failure, but they do not state it was a German strategic victory, for example. The German official history, which I unfortunately could not fully access, seems to imply their point of view was that it was not a victory of their intended goals either.

I have only transcribed some of the sources I have access to (physically or e-docs), there are obviously a lot more out there, including ones dedicated to the battle. I believe we should await more sources and more opinions, and summarize accordingly. At present, in my opinion, there are essentially (at present) several general schools of thought listed below regarding the outcome: 1) for a variety of reasons, the Allies did not achieve what they set out to do. 2) the captured terrain was worthless, so there was no tangible benefit of the operation 3) the captured terrain had strategic and tactical benefits to the Allies 4) the operation had the knock on result of the Hunger Winter. If a cop-out position is stating to see a detailed section for more info, then a brief summary could be: Strategic failure of the operation (still using the terminology so many people have taken issue with, because that is the terminology the sources use), debated tactical effects (which would need to be detailed in the afermath section), Hunger Winter.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Very informative listing of sources. Good job. Smallchief (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What do the sources say?

• "In terms of the Allies' original objectives, the operation was a total failure. They had not managed to cut off the German units in the Western Netherlands, nor could they now contemplate making a wide detour round the West Wall fortifications from the north. At this point it seemed impossible envisage any real end to the war before the onset of winter. The reasons why Market-Garden failed were the poor terrain and bad weather conditions ... [the Allies] had assessed the enemy situation wrongly. ... Similarly, the Germans succeeded only in part with their plans to counter Market-Garden. Model was trying to hem in the Allied troops south of the Lower Rhine and to destroy them there. Yet British 2nd Army proved ... [unable to access the next page]", German official history, Vol VII, The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia 1943–1944/5, Horst Boog, Gerhard Krebs, Detlef Vogel, p. 669:
• "It is therefore desirable to see why [Market-Garden] failed to do so [secure bridges etc.] and why it only succeeded in winning a valuable salient and a bridgehead over the Waal which had no immediate effect on the Allies advance into Germany." British official history, Victory in the West Vol II: The Defeat of Germany, L.F. Ellis, pp. 50-51,. To note, the emphasis is in book. This is about the only short overall summary provided as the rest discusses individual factors. One should also note that Ellis does not have the best reputation.
• "Operation MARKET-GARDEN accomplished much of what it had been designed to accomplish. Nevertheless, by the merciless logic of war, MARKET-GARDEN was a failure. ... The Allies had trained their sights on far-reaching objectives. These they had not attained. On the credit side, MARKET-GARDEN had gained bridgeheads over five major water obstacles, including the formidable Maas and Waal Rivers. The bridgehead beyond the Maas was to prove a decided advantage in February 1945 when the 21 Army Group launched a drive to clear the west bank of the Rhine opposite the Ruhr. The bridgehead beyond the Waal was to pose a constant threat of an Allied thrust northward, through the Germans subsequently lessened the threat by a program of widespread inundation. Operation MARKET-GARDEN also had forged a salient sixty-five miles deep into enemy territory, had liberated many square miles of the Netherlands, and had gained some valuable airfields. It also had drawn some German formations from other sectors of the Western Front and had imposed upon these forces a high rate of attrition. On the debit side, some might maintain that the cardinal point was the failure to precipitate a German collapse. Although the enemy's collapse was hardly a formal objective of the operation, few would deny that many Allied commanders had nurtured the hope. In regard to more immediate and clearly defined objectives, the operation had failed to secure a bridgehead beyond the Neder Rijn, had not effectively turned the north flank of the West Wall, had not cut off the enemy's Fifteenth Army, and had not positioned the 2 I Army Group for a drive around the north flank of the Ruhr. The hope of attaining these objectives had prompted the ambition and daring that went into Operation MARKET-GARDEN. Not to have realized them could mean only that the operation had failed." US Official history, The Siegfried Line Campaign, Charles MacDonald, p. 198
• "The costly British defeat at Arnhem meant that Operation 'Market Garden' had been a failure, but the Allies had at least established a lodgment area from which to launch a future offensive into the German Rhineland." Imperial War Museum article on Market Garden, in the section labeled "Defeat" with context of talking about Arnhem.
• "...one-fifth of the Netherlands had been liberated. But the rest would endure another nine months of occupation", "The 'Hunter Winter' ... [resulted in] sixteen thousand [dead] of starvation... . 'My country,' Prince Bernhard observed, 'can never again afford the luxury of another Montgomery success. ... Market Garden had won a sixty-five mile salient that crossed five major water barriers but led nowhere. Without turning the German flank or gaining a bridgehead over the Nedger Rijn ... That task would entangle most of Second Army ... until mid-November... . Market Garden proved 'an epic cock-up'... a poor plan with deficient intelligence, haphazard execution, and indifferent generalship. ... the battle would be, [per Max Hastings, be] the last occasion of the war when Eisenhower unequivocally accepted a strategic proposal by Montgomery" Rick Atkinson, The Guns at Last Light, pp. 287-288
• "With the war still in progress, it was inevitable that Market-Garden would be presented to the British and American people as a victory. Churchill described it as 'a decided victory' and Montgomery claimed it was 90% successful since 90% of the ground specified in the Operation Order had been taken. In reality, it was a strategic failure. The West Wall had not been outflanked, Second Army was not positioned for an attack on the north flank of the Ruhr, the German Fifteenth Army had not been cut off and there had been collapse of German arms. The salient achieved led nowhere and was to prove extremely costly in the coming months. ... The seven [British commanders] most directly involved ... bear responsibility for the failure of the Operation. It is also clear that, whilst the German commanders were prepared to take all necessary measures and risk to win the battle, even to point of using men untrained in ground warfare, their British adversaries were [not]..." Reynolds, Sons of the Reich, p. 174
• "...the partly unsuccessful Market-Garden offensive..."(p. 162) and "When [Market-Garden] failed, Montgomery immediately reconstituted the Second (British) Army so that it could launch Operation Gatwick, an eastward thrust intended to reach the Rhine near Krefeld" (p. 170), Stephen Ashley Hart, Colossal Cracks - this is not a history of the operation, rather an analysis of the Army Group in Europe.
• "Strategically, therefore, Market Garden was a failure. ... If Market Garden ever had a chance it was the last chance to seize this great strategic opportunity. It failed, and the war went on." David Fraser, And We Shall Shock Them, p. 348
• "This salient, 60 miles deep, was of immense tactical value for the purpose of driving the Germans from the area south of the Maas and thus removing the threat of an immediate counter-stroke against Antwerp; strategically, however, it was in danger of becoming a blind alley, unless the bridgeheads over the Maas and the Wall could be quickly exploited. ... although Montgomery's troops were deployed beyond the northern end of the Siegfried Line, these defences had not been effectively outflanked. Moreover, the barrier of the Rhine remained and the threat to the Ruhr was neither as great nor as immediate as Montgomery had hoped. ... [Montgomery's claim of 90% success] is difficult to support, unless the success of the operation is judged merely in terms of the number of bridges captured. ... the failure to secure the ninth, the bridge at Arnhem, meant the frustration of Montgomery's strategic purpose." Chester Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe, p. 523
• "...the airborne operation had achieved some useful results. It had driven a wedge into the German northern position, thereby isolating the Fifteenth Army north of Antwerp from the First Parachute Army on the eastern side of the bulge. This segregation from the rest of the German front complicated the supply problem of Fifteenth Army, which was to forced to rely on the inferior crossings over the Maas and the Waal rivers west of the Allied penetration. The capture of these bridgeheads ... served as an important base for subsequent operations against the Germans on the Rhine. 'The loss of the bridges at Grave and Nijmegen was a great embarrassment to us,' said General von Zangen of Fifteenth Army. 'By capturing them the Allies forced us to remain on the defensive in this area in order to prevent this bulge from growing. We were never able to assemble enough troops for a serious counterattack to retaken Antwerp." Milton Shulamn, Defeat in the West, p.210
• "At the end of ten days of bitter fighting, as the advance of the thrust from the south had ground to a halt, that thin wedge itself under heavy German attack... the attempt to 'bounce' the [Rhine] had failed by a narrow margin in the face of reviving Germany resistance, but it had failed nonetheless. ... the defeat suffered in the operation Market Garden ..." Gerhard Weinberg, A World At Arms, pp. 701-702

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)

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)

@178dot; How about you approach this as an edit request, whereby you propose that content "x" be changed to content "y", supported by reference "z"...? (Also, take a look at this and this, you may find them helpful.) - wolf 15:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that the addition of an English wiki should be a matter primarily of native speakers. Personally, I try to write in wiki only on topics related to Russia. Probably, this should be of interest to people who read it (wiki). The topic of the MG is not so strongly connected with Russia that I would consider it reasonable to deal with it so much. The topic of MG is very interesting, as I have noticed. Perhaps this is largely due to dissatisfaction in its presentation here. I am not entirely satisfied with this either, and have tried to state my position in detail. I hope this was interesting to someone.Moreover, I was directly asked to cite sources to confirm my views, which I did. 93.81.211.63 (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@93dot, (I take it you are the same user as 178dot above? I note you are both located in Volgograd). Your views on the operation, and certainly the sources, are appreciated, but these talk pages are typically for discussing article content (and possible changes to it). This is why I suggested that, if you are proposing a change be made made, you suggest it in a "change 'x' to 'y' format". This would aid in communication here, especially if there is any kind of language barrier. (Also, please take a look at this guideline to indent your posts) Thank you - wolf 07:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"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)

• C. The allied failed to achieve their objectives (and did not secure a victory), but failing to meet objectives is not a defeat or German victory.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Aftermath"

Right now, the infobox has "result see Aftermath", but the link takes the reader to "Outcome", in the bottom 1/3 of the "Aftermath" section, which can be... disorienting. Shouldn't it link to the top of the section, as advertised? - wolf 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The initial edit was made in line with consensus that was reached earlier this year, but when I transferred the info from the talkpage to the article I used the existing layout. I have updated the infobox to "see debate on outcome", where it links to. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the link is more accurate now. Thanks - wolf 15:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Number of prisoners

So, to start off with: https://military.wikia.org is not a reliable source, and is largely a mirror of this article.

As for the sources uses in the current version of the article, there is an entire sourced section that the infobox reflects:

"German casualties are harder to determine, due to incomplete records. Rundstedt provided an official figure of 3,300, but this has been challenged by historians. Conservative estimates range from 6,400 to 8,000 killed and wounded.[157][158] Kershaw listed the German order of battle, with between 6,315 and 8,925 casualties.[159] In A Bridge Too Far, Cornelius Ryan estimated 7,500 to 10,000 additional casualties to those provided by Rundstedt, for a final total of 10,800–13,300 losses.[160] A contemporary paper by the 21st Army Group reported that 16,000 German prisoners were taken during the course of Operation Market Garden. The report also claimed the destruction of 159 German aircraft, and 30 tanks or self-propelled guns during the operation.[8][l]"

The note from the above para reads: "Historian Cornelius Ryan wrote that "complete German losses remain unknown but that in Arnhem and Oosterbeek admitted casualties came to 3,300 including 1,300 dead" and "I would conservatively estimate that Army Group B lost at least another 7,500–10,000 men of which perhaps a quarter were killed."[154] Michael Reynolds wrote that "precise details of German casualties do not exist", and they totaled about 6,400 based on research by Robert Kershaw. Kershaw estimated that 2,565 Germans were killed north of the lower Rhine and a further 3,750 were lost fighting around XXX Corps corridor.[157] Stephen Badsey wrote that "other calculations place [German losses] at 2,000 dead and 6,000 wounded".[158]"

Each of the quoted sources specify that the historians are talking about German killed and wounded. Rundstedt's figure is for killed and wounded. The 21st Army Group report, is pretty much quoted in full in the above section, when it comes to detailing captured Germans, as well as aircraft and tanks destroyed. Other British sources are pretty sparse on the subject of casualties during this period. For example, the 3rd Inf and 11th Arm Div's history gloss over their involvement in the flanking operations. The 7th Arm Div's history does the same, but does indicate around 200 prisoners taken in one action. The 15th Scottish's history details their fighting, but does not provide info on casualties inflicted or sustained. The two XXX Corps histories are, to be brutally honest, not that good and don't provide much in the way of casualty info. The VIII Corps history summarizes that around 1,100 prisoners were taken on their flank.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Christmas

From the lead:

The failure of Operation Market Garden to form a foothold over the Rhine ended Allied hopes of finishing the war by Christmas 1944.

Should that be "Allied"? Does it include the USSR? Also, if this was part of the plan it should be mentioned in the body of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to western Allied hopes as Stalin had an entirely separate strategy, as shown by the Warsaw Uprising. (Westerhaley (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC))

That makes little sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite. The Soviet actions during the Warsaw Uprising are disputed, and personal interpretations should not be used to impact the article. The 'Big Three' of the UK, USA, and USSR are generally defined as the allied powers during the war - if I am not mistaken - and western allies used to refer to the UK/USA. There was hope among the Anglo-Americans to end the war, but I don't believe that many sources express if this was a realistic hope or not. Maybe it is WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lead? Market Garden aimed to achieve one thing, hopes and dreams seem beyond the scope of the lede.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What does the source say?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Market Garden was an operation by the western Allies. Stalin admitted he deliberately halted the Red Army so the Germans could crush the Warsaw Uprising. He told Churchill the Poles were "criminals", and that he already had a Communist regime in waiting for Poland. (Westerhaley (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC))

Clearly, Market Garden was an operation by the western Allies, but it's not clear how this affected the Eastern Front (or the war in the Pacific for that matter). By this time, the Red Army was in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and the Baltic states. I don't see the relevance of the Warsaw Uprising to this article. I have never seen the argument made that Stalin was deliberately prolonging the war, if that is what you are suggesting. Ending the war was a collective effort, in which the Red Army played a major role. Again, I would ask, what does the source actually say?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The Soviet Union deliberately delayed its reconquest of Poland in the summer and autumn of 1944 so the Germans could crush the Warsaw Uprising. Stalin admitted to Churchill that he did not want an independent Poland after the war. (Westerhaley (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC))

Unless there are sources that say specifically that the aim of Operation Market Garden was to end the war by Christmas then I don't think this phrase belongs in the article at all, let alone in the lede. The only time I recall this phrase being used is in the narration at the start of the movie A Bridge Too Far, which is not a reliable source by any stretch. --Shimbo (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at several sources and none of them suggested that a goal of Market Garden was to end the war by the end of 1944. Several suggested that his was just a general expectation among the western allies (starting after the breakout in Normandy), and essentially the outcome of Market Garden brought them all back to reality. As for the Soviet perspective, the Warsaw Uprising (numerous point of views on the hows and whys of what happened with the Red Army) or their general advances appear to have no connection to how the west planned on conducting the war; the sources dont bring them into it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that means that the statement is basically true.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Debate on outcome?

There is no real debate, despite Montgomery and Churchill trying to present the operation as a success at the time. Market Garden was a complete failure which prolonged the war and failed to achieve its objectives. The result should say either "Allied operational failure" or "German victory". (Westerhaley (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC))

Whatever you say, Harvey.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the various quoted sources in the article before you wrote this? You still have not provided a source that states the operation was a German victory.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It was a major Allied defeat. Therefore it was a German victory. (Westerhaley (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC))

Not necessarily. It's not the default that one always means the other. - wolf 12:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Westerhaley, unless you have sources to provide; this entire discussion is pointless.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Every source I have seen states the operation failed to achieve its objectives and that it suffered greater losses than the Germans, a fairly unusual occurrence at that point in the war: https://dailyhistory.org/Why_did_Operation_Market_Garden_in_1944_fail%3F (Westerhaley (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC))

William Goldman wrote Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid and The Princess Bride, one of which is the best movie I've never watched. He was a rhetorician and stitched up the Brits with a bag made of patchwork. A pocket full of wry and a cupp of snooze juice is all that mangrel had, or so I'm told. One of us is only here because of the movie, but Arnhem Land is not the best place to play gin rummy, if you cache my drift.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Published secondary sources by historians, something that would meet WP:RS. Now you keep saying "everything" you have read; but you also said that about A Bridge Too Far, which didnt say it. Do you have any reliable published secondary sources that support your contention? I would also note, have you reviewed the published secondary sources that the article has thus far consulted, to see why historians are disputed on the overall outcome of the fighting (there are at least two camps on the subject, so it isnt black or white)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ryan and others acknowledged the failed operation delayed the Allied victory in western Europe. (Westerhaley (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC))

The overarching point of the above was that regardless of what you have read (so far, Ryan (who did not support your conclusions) and a website that does not appear to meet the WP:RS standard, although I am happy to stand corrected on that), there are multiple camps on the outcome of this operation. The article needs to reflect that, and not just one camp. There shouldn't, without consensus and based off the actual (and not inferred) wording of the sources, be a change to "German victory" since there is a lack of sources actually stating that (the vast majority so far presented by anyone, all beat around the bush of labelling it a failure with a mixed debate on the strategic outcome). If, and at this point it seems a big if, you bring additional sources to the table, we can update the article to reflect more points of view so that the reader can see the varying opinions on the outcome and therefore come to their own conclusion on the operation. Any further discussion without sources is a waste of time. I hope you bring a reliable secondary source to the table with your next comment, so that we can make further refinements to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Result

The result should be given as a German victory. (Westerhaley (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC))

Please see the sections above in the talkpage. Additional sources for the outcome are always welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that the result shouldn't be in the infobox, I think it would be useful if there was a summary paragraph at the start of the Aftermath section, so readers don't have to read the entire section to understand the basic issues. (Hohum ^@) 16:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Caught me in the act, so to speak. It may not be as you had suggested, but I was just finished up a summary of the various RS that were provided previously in their own section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice! The link should probably go there now. (Hohum ^@) 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Every book I have read states that it was a German victory. (Westerhaley (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC))

Care to name some, and provide quotes?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I read "A Bridge Too Far" by Cornelius Ryan when I was 14. (Westerhaley (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC))

Its has been a long while since I have read Ryan's work.

A complete copy of Ryan's work can be found here (free to access if you create a free account). His work is largely a history of the Battle of Arnhem (Arnhem =/= Market Garden). The article for the latter quite rightly states that the 1st Airborne Division was defeated at the hands of the Germans, and lines up with Ryan's comments (the following being one of only 16 uses of the word 'defeat', and the only one in the context of some sort of summation: "The stand of the British 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem remains one of the greatest feats of arms in World War II military history. But it was also a major defeat..." (p.637).

In summarizing the entire operation (p. 591), Ryan quotes Montgomery and John Warren. Their works and full quotes are already in this article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Market Garden is generally regarded as a complete failure, despite Montgomery's postwar claims. (Westerhaley (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC))

A position that lines up with the bunch of sources already cited...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems the primary reason Market Garden is not regarded as a defeat is English language jingoism. This issue has been discussed before, including by me. One of my observations was that of eleven "reliable" sources on Market Garden cited by another editor, the characterization of Market Garden was (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." That's eight out of eleven "reliable" sources that point to Market Garden as a German victory -- and the other three are equivocal. I would call that a consensus in favor of German victory or Allied defeat.Smallchief (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was reached that "see aftermath" should be the choice. That was only in January. If you want to change this, you will need to establish consensus. As for the rest of your point, this is the wiki: we report what the sources state, not what we think they state, or how we interpreter what they say. Once again, if you believe the decision is wrong, then you need to bring sources to the table.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I gave you eight sources, all of them deemed reliable. Smallchief (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

All of whom (a mix of American, British, and German historians) stated the operation failed, not that the Anglo-American force over the course of the entire operation was defeated. If you want to argue for a change to defeat, you need to provide sources that state so.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Even the Imperial War Museum acknowledges it was a British defeat: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-story-of-operation-market-garden-in-photos (Westerhaley (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC))

Whilst Market Garden was a military failure, I suspect that the thousands of Dutch men, women and children liberated by the Allied forces during the operation might tend to disagree, especially considering they were thusly spared the appalling conditions other Dutch people had to endure during the subsequent Hunger winter of 1944-45. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.228 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW. One of the reasons for wanting a speedy liberation of the Netherlands as opposed to a 'broad front' offensive was so as to deprive the Germans of as many potential V-2 launching sites within range of London as was possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.228 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Holland was more pro-Nazi than any other occupied country. That was never one of the objectives of the failed operation. (Westerhaley (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC))

Failure

OP blocked as sock of HarveryCarter Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The result should be changed to "Allied operation failure", like the article on the Warsaw airlift. Westerhaley (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Isn't this done? I thought this was done... - wolf 15:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC) WP:DEADHORSE (Hohum @) 15:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC) I agree calling it a German victory is debatable, but even Churchill admitted the operation was a failure. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)) @Westerhaley: Couple things; 1) WP:DEADHORSE, wasn't just a flippant reply, it literally means that is you keep pushing an issue that is considered resolved, you could face sanctions. That said, 2) WP:CONSENSUS can change. If you leave this be for awhile, gather all the sources and supporting evidence you can, then in say... 3 months, you can come back and post a new RfC on the issue, and perhaps get the outcome you seek. (jmho) - wolf 19:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC) "The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army" (1994) calls Market Garden a military defeat for the Allies at a late stage in the war. (Westerhaley (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)) That looks like inference, rather than what was stated.: "What had begun with high optimism had turned into a military disaster. Although the stand of Frost's battalion at Arnhem bridge is widely considered one of the most heroic episodes of the Second World War, Operation Market Garden had failed to establish a bridgehead north of the Rhine... . The failure at Arnhem led to a stalemate during the autumn and early winter...", Carlo D'Este, The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army, 2004, p. 302-303 "Monty weathered these storms and was promoted to field marshal in September but generated further controversy over his handling of the ill-fated airborne-ground operation, Market-Garden, intended to liberate Arnhem and obtain a bridgehead over the Rhine and a clear path to the Ruhr" - p. 289, character bio "Operation Market-Garden fails" - p. 463, timelineEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC) However, I will add in D'Este's comment to the article later when I have a moment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "Military disaster" is an even more decisive result than "military defeat". I knew a veteran of the Battle of Arnhem who told me the entire operation was a complete failure. (Westerhaley (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)) We report what the sources say, not what we would like them to say or what we think they say. Your veteran's comment would align with what the majority of sources say.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

16,000 German soldiers Captured in 8 days

I'am leaving as claims the British war report of 16,000 German soldiers Captured. There is no single other source regarding that number. It's simply a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, it have no basis and clearly surpasses the fact that most sources state 6,000 to 13,000 total German Losses. By the way who could believe the German could loss that number of forces in some days when the advance was on bridges and towns. Most likely a wartime report, not in line with the rest of Sources used regarding German of total Losses. I don't want to think that the article is written in a POV style, by someone or a group of editors. That instead of looking for sources they push a certain POV. Also the result of the Operation is very dubious and least. It was a Operational failure but the allies captured terrain, bridges and towns. Why editors have not added that at terrain changes. What's happening here?Mr.User200 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The land we captured during Market Garden was mostly useless for defeating Germany. When we finally, 7 months later, crossed the Rhine, it was many miles from the Market Garden area of operations. Much better than Market Garden in September 1944 would have been to attempt to capture the port of Antwerp in that same month which would have vastly simplified our logistics -- and would have facilitated an earlier attack across the Rhine into Germany. Many others, including Brits, share the view that Antwerp should have been the priority, not Market Garden.Smallchief (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Those Brits would include Montgomery, but note what the article says about the V-2 rockets. If any is interested in the logistics, I have written an article on the subject, British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign, which is currently up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The source is from Notes on the Operations of 21 Army Group, 6 June 1944 (Casualty section of article) - I will check and verify figure if needed? Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the "notes" of Monty's headquarters can be considered a reliable source. I favor deleting the reference to German prisoners unless or until we come up with a far more realistic number from a less biased source. Smallchief (talk)

I think the same.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be surprised if the number of German prisoners captured during Market Garden was much more than 1,000 Smallchief (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the liberation of Paris, the capture of Aechen in Germany left less than 12,000 German soldiers captured.I remember reading somewhere Second Army VIII Coros capturing riughtly 1,000 German POWs. Don't know how many were captured by US paratroopers but the 16,000 figure is extraordinary like I said before. Maybe a typo error of 1,600 captured? Can someone check the source itself?Mr.User200 (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Smallchief (talk) - I agree with this. Still going through the documents and can't find anything pow's yet. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll delete the reference to German prisoners in the infobox. I've looked around and found few references to German prisoners being taken, and those references to German prisoners cite 100 here and 60 there and 30 here and there, etc. Maybe we can find a reliable source on this info.Smallchief (talk)

The number of prisoners on hand in the 21st Army Group did not represent the number captured! On 19 September, the 21st Army Group held 23,000 prisoners; by the end of September 50,000 were held. Under an agreement dating back to 1942, prisoners taken by the Allies were shared equally between the US and UK. This must have seemed a reasonable deal in 1942, when British forces greatly outnumbered American ones, but became a serious problem in late 1944. It appears to me that the extra 16,000 largely represented prisoners captured by the American armies in August and September, rather than prisoners taken in the Market Garden operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful comment.Smallchief (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The info from Operations of 21st Army Group was provided with a page and para citation, so it should have been easy to find. The verbatim quote from p.32 is: "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."

Now, if you (no one in particular) are going to say this source is bunk, then you need to remove the tank/SP and aircraft info from the infobox as well. You cannot accept the part you like, and remove the part you don't agree with. Personally, I thought the prior edit to the infobox stating "allied claims" was a nice way of finding a compromise and highlighting what an allied contemporary source said (there are several articles out there that do so).

I also reviewed the German official history for the period, and interestingly enough they only quote Rundstedt for casualties around Arnhem. They don't provide any casualty info for the operation as whole.

The VIII Corps official history stated that the corp picked up 1,100 prisoners during the operation (Jackson, p. 156). I am not sure that a XII Corps history exists, but histories for at least two of its formations do. The 7th Arm's history is not detailed enough to provide an entire account of their role in the flanking advance, and it would seem they only start providing figures for the day after the end of the operation when they report picking up 250 prisoners on 26 September. That is followed by the suggestion of a further 200 taken sometime soon after, followed by "a steady trickle of deserters" (p.92). However, it does seem to be after the op has ended and during the period of the ongoing fighting around the territory captured by Market Garden. 15th Div's history does not provide any sort of overview of their casualties or if they took any prisoners. The XXX Corps histories are not the best, but do suggest frontline troops captured following the breakout from Joe's Bridge (a force of six battalions forming the initial German crust), additional prisoners rounded up near the Wilhelmina Canal bridge who assisted engineers in throwing up a new one, various recollections of handfuls of prisoners being taken during the general advance, and at least 70 taken after the Nijmegen Bridge was crossed (Club Route, Chapter 5).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The American OH, The Siegfried Line Campaign, does not appear to provide an overall tally. It does provide the following snippets, however:

Appears to be in reference to the 101st AB's sector: "By the end of D plus 2 the prisoners totaled more than 1,400, and the paratroopers actually counted more than 300 enemy dead. (p. 152)"

Also appears to be in reference to the 101st AB's sector: "It was a classic maneuver, a little Cannae, which by the end of the day [D+3] had accounted for about 500 Germans, including 418 prisoners. (p. 187)"

Appearing to be in reference to the 82nd AB's sector: "On D plus 1 ... Enemy killed were an estimated 150; German prisoners, 885. (p. 168)"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Final comment of the day: "6,000 to 13,000 total German Losses" - if you read the cited sources, they are all purely discussing killed and wounded. Several sources specify that German records are incomplete, resulting in the various estimates. Based off the above, there was at the very least, 2,400 prisoners taken by the US divisions and VIII Corps that are not included in the 6-13k estimates.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Kewshaw, p. 339: 2,565 killed, wounded, and missing (as in bodies not found, deserters, and those not at roll call when the stats were taken; not necessarily those captured) around Arnhem. Obviously, the British 1st AB didn't maintain any prisoners they may have took.

Kewshaw, p.340: the overall Arnhem casualties are estimated based off the identified dead of 1,725 x3 to factor in wounded and missing, to get to 5,715.

Kershaw, p. 340: the casualties around the corridor do not include those taken prisoner. For example, Kershaw identifies the 59th Division's casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) at 750 as part of his overall estimates. However, earlier on p. 144, he notes that the division took 300 dead in the fighting around Best, and lost "more than 1,400 prisoners taken".

Both Kershaw and Reynolds state that total German casualties do not exist. Kershaw writes that the German casualties are all estimates as the records are incomplete.

Badsey, as quoted, specifies killed and wounded only.

Ryan doesn't specify what his numbers include. He quotes the 3,300 figure for Arnhem, acknowledges that German records are not complete to allow a complete list of killed, wounded, or missing. His figure of 7,500-10,000, for around the corridor, is an estimate with a guestimate of one quarter killed. He doesn't specify what his numbers include.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Terrible state of the article.

Several sections of the timeline lack citations, too many links to the Battle of Arnhem, cited at every day. One link to the sub battles is enought, also the idea of using separate articles is to split the article and avoid reading a long article ( wall of text). Another problem, the lead is way to long. The lead should be concise to give the first time-reader, a outline of the Operation and some intro to what he/she will find in the article content. There a lot of work to do here.Mr.User200 (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I would propose taking the “brainchild of Montgomery” line out as a start to trim the lede. It was based on his planned Op Comet, but he had zero to do with Op MG. It is also something that anti-Monty folk cling to, citing this article as stating it was his operation. I’ll have look at putting it on a diet.Enderwigginau (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is "result" still redirecting people to "outcome"?

Having the "result" section redirect people to "outcome" is pointlessly disorienting, especially to those visiting the page seeking a quick answer to the question of the result of the operation. Operation Market Garden clearly and indisputably failed to achieve it's given objectives or anything of greater significance, and as such should say something along the lines of "Allied defeat" or "Allied operational failure". BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you note the discussion directly above this? Personally, I support "Allied operational failure", but there does not seem to be a consensus for that. Beyond My Ken (talk)

I did, and virtually all of the various discussions seem to be calling for my aforementioned suggested change, and that was in fact formerly the listed result. There seems to be pretty clear consensus that, while the result was not a "German victory" it was in some form an "Allied failure". The redirection to "outcome" is unnecessary and confusing. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your reading of the interminable discussions about this seems to see a different consensus to me. (Hohum ^@) 08:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am somewhat amused by this. For years, people have argued that "Allied operational failure" was wrong and it should be "German victory/Allied defeat" (although hardly any sources are ever provided to support that). Then, after what seems to have been the millionth debate on this, we reach some form of consensus to remove an outcome and direct to a section the reader can make their own mind up. And now, the argument for "Allied operation failure" to be returned has started. I feel like we should write WP: No one is ever happy.

For what it is worth, amusement aside, I do agree. The majority of sources do refer to Market Garden as a failure. However, considering the annual debate about it, I do think the current situation is a better compromise than constantly arguing if it should state "German victory" or "Allied failure" etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It may satisfy more people if the "Debate on outcome" section had a sentence or two summarizing it with adequate weight to each "result". I think there is more nuance than fits sensibly in an infobox, but requiring readers to digest the entire section is also less than ideal. (Hohum ^@) 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not recall seeing a single source that expresses the various schools of thought or outlines what the consensus is. Wouldn't a single summary sentence run the risk of being in breach of WP:SYN?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the best solution to this issue was the edit I made, which was to list "Allied operational failure" as the result, followed by a redirection to the "outcome" section, implying there is more nuance to the outcome of the operation than a simple victory/defeat. And honestly, easily verifiable historical facts (such as Market Garden failing to achieve it's objectives) should not require consensus. Consensus on an internet forum has no bearing on what the historical reality of the conflict is. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that there will always be partisan views on articles of this nature. It also is not surprising that there has been a "battle" to change this to state a victory for German also for Allies. It was a daring operation, which had initial positive progress, however it is undeniably an operational failure. Whoever was sockpuppeting above has muddied the waters on consensus, but this is what the result was for the operation. Linking after to outcomes after the result in order discuss the nuances is perfect for getting a broader read on various parties views of how portions went, but the operation failed and that was the result. Currently the outcomes section is quite the mess, and broad usage of "90% success" is very much synthesis not supported by the quotes that follow. If it met xyz of its goals is something to be discussed in the outcomes section. To call the result a "German victory" would be incorrect as there were a lot of factors involved, but as far as the "operation" is concerned (the subject of this page) -- it failed.

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE Which this does not do. Anyone attempting to read this article and work out what happened is going to be very confused and have to read blocks of text which still don't add clarity. Millitary operations are rarely a binary result, but bulletpoints of the operational goals completed or unintended outcomes etc are acceptable while still having it showing as an operational failure, which it was 92.234.66.66 (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Allied commanders

I've just made a correction to the Eisenhower's title after he was added to the infobox by an IP editor in January. I notice there is a comment in the "commander1" parameter stating "See talk page regarding who and who should not be put in this section". Would anybody be able to direct me to the location of this discussion? XAM2175 ^(T) 21:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)