Anniversary of Market Garden poll...

[Bootie]

Montgomery offered Eisenhower his suggestion for an aggressive assault against Germany. He proposed to Dwight Eisenhower a thrust into the Netherlands to control several key bridges in preparation for a subsequent armor assault across Germany's flat northern plains. Accepted by Eisenhower, Operation Market Garden was launched, but it met a complete failure with heavy loss of lives. Eisenhower, disappointed with the defeat, transferred Montgomery from the front lines to become the commander-in-chief of British occupation forces, but he stressed that Montgomery's skills were not to be doubted. "Those critics of Montgomery who assert that he sometimes failed to attain the maximum must at least admit that he never once sustained a major defeat", said Dwight Eisenhower. Addressing the criticism that Montgomery lacked aggressiveness, Eisenhower responded that "caution and timidity are not synonymous, just as boldness and rashness are not!" These words of Eisenhower's were rather generous considering Montgomery's attitude toward Eisenhower bordered on insubordination. During a one-on-one planning session for Market Garden between Montgomery and Eisenhower, Montgomery lectured Eisenhower as if Eisenhower was a child. Eisenhower waited until Montgomery paused for breath, and interrupted; "Steady Monty," Eisenhower said. "You cannot talk to me like this. I am your boss." Montgomery, his ego suddenly deflated, mumbled his apologies; "Sorry, Ike".


When the Germans embarked on the Ardennes offensive on 16 Dec 1944, known as the Battle of the Bulge to the Western Allies, the US 1st Army was split in two groups by the Germans. While Bradley maintained communications with the southern group, he lost touch with the northern group. Montgomery was the nearest Allied officer to the northern units of the US 1st Army, so he absorbed the American units into his command. German General Hasso von Manteuffel of the 5th Panzer Army praised his opponent's quick decision, noting that
<dir> Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough. </dir> As the Germans began to lose their initiative, Eisenhower ordered Montgomery to go on an offensive on 1 Jan 1945 in an attempt to envelope the German forces. On the grounds that his men were not prepared to march through a snowstorm, he delayed his attack for two days, by which point the bulk of the German forces escaped what could had been a pocket.


During the Allied advance to the Rhine River, Montgomery's careful planning directly led to the low casualty rates among his units. His 21st Army Group was ordered to swing north to take Hamburg, Germany and to seal the base of the Danish peninsula to block a potential Russian westward advance beyond Berlin. On 4 May 1945, in a tent in the region of Lüneburg Heath in Lower Saxony, Germany, he accepted the surrender of German forces in northern Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

 

[PoorOldSpike]

I voted "Yes blame Monty", but although MG was his idea, it was rubberstamped "OK" by Ike, so he must share the responsibility.
Personally I think it was far too risky because it amounted to a narrow advance along virtually a single road, relying on smoothly capturing intact bridges en route.
As it was, the slowness of the advance meant they couldn't get to Arnhem in time, and Brit 1st Airborne were left out to dry..

The bottom line is, we'd been steadily rolling Jerry back on a wide frontage all the time since Normandy, so there was no real need for MG at all.
No doubt the idea behind it was "Let's go for a bold stroke and end the war by Christmas.."

 

[Hedgehog]

Not a easy question to put the blame on a exellent Commander who made a error of judgement, like most great men errors do happen, Montgomery was a brilliant Commander in my Eyes, and a lot of the trouble was Monty and Eisenhower were a bit like oil and water not seeing eye to eye on many thing's, so having said that I suppose I should vote Yes, with a heavy heart for sure

 

[Rico]

Monty's big mistake wasn't MG, but the huge blunder was not clearing the seaward approaches to Antwerp immediatedly upon liberating the city and advancing beyond it to cut off the German 15th Army... that elementary mistake alone set the Allies back by months.
Problem with Monty was not that he made mistakes, but that was so arrogant and vain that he put himself forward as the infallible genius field commander...

 

[Hedgehog]

The Battle Of El Alamein

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/launch_ani_el_alamein.shtml

 

[Bidermann]

I supose he thought the axis forces were washed up and a bold attack would end the war, and in fact they were only one bridge short of the mission. So I will vote no as the plan was bold and if it had worked then he would of been turned into one of the great war generals.

 

[PoorOldSpike]

And it was just bad luck that unknown to Monty, the 9th SS Pz Div were stationed around Arnhem

 

[Bert Blitzkrieg]

And it was just bad luck that unknown to Monty, the 9th SS Pz Div were stationed around Arnhem

And the 10th as well. They were reported by Dutch resistance BTW. And you call that bad luck ? In hindsight everything is easy.

 

[Owl]

Wrong! It was known by the British! I don't not exactly know in witch book it was mentioned but the intell officer who was aware of the situation was forbidden to present the real picture!!!!:tape2: so the British could execute the AB operation!!

Owl

 

[Bootie]

But did Monty know?

 

[Breakthrough]

I feel that 'It Never Snows in September' is the best book on MG. The premise that it wasnt just what the Allies did wrong but what the Germans did right is correct in my book. German doctrine, organization and generalship alone was enough to counter MG....

 

[Bidermann]

And the 10th as well. They were reported by Dutch resistance BTW. And you call that bad luck ? In hindsight everything is easy.

Dont forget that there had been a few problems with the Dutch , and some of the intel was classed as not reliable .

 

[Bert Blitzkrieg]

Dont forget that there had been a few problems with the Dutch , and some of the intel was classed as not reliable .

Do you mean the captured Dutch spy(ies) in the "Englandspiel" ? They signalled the code in their radiomessages with which to report they were captured but still the English, who led this operation, kept sending new spies , equipment etc. Just so that they could be captured too...

Perhaps it was more a case of not wanting to believe these reports by Dutch resistance. And I don't think all of the German armour was reported by the resistance but some elements of it.