Talk:Operation Market Garden/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Commanders

I'd been musing on this over the weekend since someone changed the commanders in the info box, and they've just been changed again. Technically, it's only supposed to include Army or Corps commanders, so theoretically shouldn't include Taylor or Gavin. However, I would personally prefer to see the 3 divisional commanders listed in the info box, especially as the battle was so spread out and each division was acting independantly. I was glad that someone removed references to Brereton and Ridgway though, as I didn't believe that they really exercise any control over the battle. I've shoved Urquhart in to accompany the others for the moment, but I wondered what everyone else thought about it? Oh, one other thing - should Canada be in the info box? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The OOB shows:

• 21st AG - Monty
  • 1st Allied Airborne Army - Brereton
    • I Airborne Corps - Browning
    • XVIII Airborne Corps -Ridgway
  • 2nd Army - Dempsey
    • VIII Corps - O'Connor
    • XII Corps - Ritchie
    • XXX Corps - Horrocks

Thats a total of 6 divisions involved (plus attached brigades) in the main portion of Market-Garden and a further 6 divisions (plus attached brigades) in supporting roles.

If the airborne divisional commanders are shown why not Adair of the Guards armour etc? If some Corps commanders are removed because "they [didnt] really exercise any control over the battle" then should the likes of Dempsey and Monty also be removed? The list if my understanding is correct is suppose to show the main commanders or those who played a significant role i.e. planning etc So, imo at least, it seems more approbriate to show the Corps COs and above - the OOB shows everyone else.

Oh and i agree i dont think Canada should be in there, as far as i know they had no troops attached to the 1st Airborne Division nor was any of there men attached to any Second Army units at this time.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1st Canadian Group, RCE with its 20th and 23rd Field Companies RCE played an important part in the evacuation. The 1st and 2nd Army Troops Companies RCE also participated in the operation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that Brereton deferred command of the airborne operation to Browning. I also believed that Ridgway didn't go and Taylor and Gavin worked directly under Browning. My point was that just because Brereton was commander of the 1st Allied Airborne doesn't qualify him as a commander of this battle. Monty and Dempsy did exercise control over the armies they were in charge of (and Monty planned it!). My thoughts on the airborne commanders were purely because they played such a major role and acted somewhat more independently than the XXX crop divisions. I'd have thought that at least Urquharts role would come under 'significant' - though I'm fine if everyone thinks it would be more appropriate to just have Browning covering the airborne element, but I wanted to explain why I added Urquhart. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem them that Monty, Dempsey, Browning and Horrocks are the men to show. It shows the top level commanders who were making the plans and giving orders etc. It would mean the infobox would be shorter (always a plus) and not going into too much detail of divisional commanders etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can leave Brereton out; he was the Army commander after all. If you show Browning you're bypassing him. DMorpheus (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your point, but by the same token you could argue that Eisenhower should be included. Including Monty would be seen as bypassing him. My main feeling though is that Brereton, whilst being commander of the airborne army, was not a commander involved in this battle. As this page is about an operation, not a unit, the commanders box should reflect the commanders of the battle. Aside from agreeing a decision about the number of lifts each day, Brereton deferred the planning and all command to Browning and was otherwise uninvolved in the operation. I have no knowledge of Browning, Monty or anyone else working with or taking orders from Brereton during the action - he was in England the whole time. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First, leaving out Ike doesn't *bypass* him because you're not skipping over him to include both those above and below him. In Brereton's case, by listing the Army Group commander (his operational superior), the other Army commander (his peer) and the Corps commanders (his subordinates) he is being skipped.

Second, Brereton's decision to do only one lift on the first day is absolutely crucial to understanding the battle; had this decision been made differently the impact would have been immense. Every single division commander in the 1st AAA asked for multiple lifts on the first day. Leaving him out as if he doesn't matter is thus a real error. His planning mistakes cost the allies dearly. Likewise, Browning's major impact on the battle was negative: his use of scarce gliders that could have been better employed carrying things besides his headquarters cost the Allies strength on that crucial first day.

As an aside I'd throw in a vote here to include Sosabowski despite his status as a mere Brigade commander. He was also the senior Polish officer and that status, not his command level, rate him a listing IMO.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to address the last point, this has been discussed by pervious editors during a bit of an editwar with annon editors. Several of them believe that considering he was just that, a brigade commander, he shouldnt be in the commanders list. If he is listed the entire argument you have just made regarding Brereton could be applied. What about the senior dutch liason officers etc

Not to undermine the man, but other then being the senior Polish officer, was he more significate then any other brigade commander in the entire battle - did he play a significate role in the planning or execution of the battle?

If suitable answers could be provided to these questions then i wouldnt have a problem with his inclusion and i think pervious editors, who have fought hard to keep him out, wouldnt either.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If the issue is presented as "should a BDE commander be included?" the answer is obviously 'no'. I don't think Sosabowski can be described as more important than other commanders at his level - nor have I attempted to make that argument. There is also the problem that US and German Divisions didn't have a BDE level in 1944, so no US or German counterparts could be listed. So in those terms of course he should not be listed, and I've never claimed that he should.

The reason I'd say he should be listed is simply that he wore two hats, and the other one was senior Polish officer. That is, he's not merely another BDE commander in a British division; he's the senior Pole in a battle involving thousands of Polish soldiers. There is no other commander involved in this battle who led a major national contingent *and* is not already listed. Montgomery was the senior Allied as well as the senior British officer. Brereton was the senior US officer. The Dutch liaison officers were just that - liaisons - not *commanders* of national contingents. They were also relatively junior officers IIRC. The Dutch liaison to the US 82ABN DIV was a Captain, for example. I'm not going to sit here and say Captains should be listed ! ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If Brereton is there, its because he was the commander of the Allied Airborne Army not because he was the senior American offier involved. I hate to keep drawing people to the Operation Brevity article but it seems the best example i can keep coming up with. This battle involved a significate number of Italian soldiers, infact there actions are a primary cause for quite a bit of the frustration inflicted on the allied forces however no Italian commander is shown because none of there commanders were significate to the events.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Including a name because it is that of the senior officer in a national contingent just opens a POV Pandora's box as people try to decide whether a brigadier is ok (as long as he's a substantive colonel)... but not a major....the whole thing starts to tread heavily on national sensitivities. Let's just keep it simple. Look at the overall allied involvement in an engagement, look at the command structure and have the relevant decision-makers in the box regardless of nationality. Otherwise it's going to set a nightmare precedent in other theaters where there were many more nationalities. P.S. For these reasons and not nationalistic ones: Yes Brereton should be in. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So we're agreed on Brereton then? DMorpheus (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believed the call to fly one lift a day was made by Major General Williams of IX Troop Carrier Command, Brereton just agreed with it. That reduces his input significantly, and anyway that really was the extent of his involvement. Listing the entire chain of command regardless of actual input seems to defy the point of an infobox. It's there for a quick rundown on the major players. As for Sasabowski, I do feel he is relevant as the commander of one of the involved nations, but I don't feel he should be there as a Brigade commander, especially as he was attached to the British forces. Tricky one, but again his input in terms of command was minimal. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be no one on the Allied side below Lieutenant General. Wallie (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation - Ellis 2008

Do we know which book this is in referance too? The only Ellis in the referance section is Victory in the West, 1st published in the 60s and then again in 2004.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It was Victory in the West. I have corrected the citations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadians

What Canadian forces took part in this battle, as they are identified as a participant in the infobox. To my knowledge no Canadian ground forces, at that time, made up any part of Second Army - especially XXX Corps and I believe the Canadian paras were not part of the 1st Airborne. Obviously if this is an incorrect believe please correct me and also provide a reference for the info box so others know it is spot info please.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there weren't any, Enigma. I imagine it should be removed, ips are always adding in these things, little bastards. Skinny87 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian engineers provided key support to the evacuation of the remnants of 1 ABN Div. I didn't add this myself but the Canadians definitely belong here. I can source it in detail in a few days (see for example David Bennet's "A Magnificent Disaster", ISBN 978-1-923033-85-4) when I have time. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, excellent. Problem solved! Skinny87 (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But they did not take part in the battle. If we go that route then we have to list South Africa and New Zealand, some of the pilots flew the planes with paras.--Jacurek (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we consult the source, which is listed now in the refs but is not the object of a cite in the questioned content. ANZAC pilots flying in RAF units would not be relevant; ANZAC squadrons would be. DMorpheus (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The 1st Canadian Group, RCE with its 20th and 23rd Field Companies RCE played an important part in the evacuation. The 1st and 2nd Army Troops Companies RCE also participated in the operation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I still say that Canadian forces were not used directly in the operation Market Garden itself but will not argue. (It makes me actually kind of proud :)...)--Jacurek (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Typos

I have removed sundry errant commas and corrected the occasional spelling and semantic slip. Feel free to revert the more opinionated ones.15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I think this is a good essay, though I might quibble with some of the judgements in it and some of the more tendentious opinions from contemporaries. I will offer alternatives in the next couple of days when I get hold of my sources.Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, in this sandbox is a partially complete rewrite of the 'Battle' section of the article. I must admit to admitting defeat in terms of writing it at the moment; it's getting so long, yet there seems no way to get past this without cutting back on essential details. Regardless, if anyone wants to make use of it, it's there. Skinny87 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neillands

Skinny et al; I have made some alterations and additions to the text (particularly on the vexed question of Nijmegen) according to Neillands' version found in 'The Battle for the Rhine 1944, Arnhem and the Ardennes: The Campaign in Europe' (2005). Chapter 5 'Nijmegen 17 - 20 September', pp 102 - 125 have the details. I've no idea about how to cite in the text using < and > so have done it like an essay for now. One anomaly I've noticed is that the essay has 'first day, second day, third etc while Neilland uses D, D+1, D+2 etc. Is there a ruling on this? Neillands is a secondary source but (at least in this book) has stuck close to primary sources.Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keith use the following code for an inline citation:

<ref>Author name, p. XX</ref>

If your going to be using a single page for allot of stuff type this the first time around:

<ref name="Bob">Author name, p. XX</ref>

Then this for the rest:

<ref name="Bob"/>

Obviously you can change "bob" to be whatever you want, i usually go for the author and page number i.e. "Bob11" etc

Hope that helps :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go matey.:0)Keith-264 (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, this article is a massive headache for me, but please don't let my pessimism deter you :) D+1 etc does seem like a more logical alternative to what's there at the moment. If you need the stuff in my sandbox, then please, have at it; I also have a large number of sources on the operation if you need extra references. Skinny87 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling his name right is a struggle at the moment.:0) I think that the meat of the essay is already there and I've tried to put Neillands' contrary views as alternatives rather than contradictionsKeith-264 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should start considering splitting this article up?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We considered this before. The problem was that the only logical way to split it up is horizontally:

• Battle of Arnhem
• Battle of Nijmegen
• Battle of Hell's Highway
• Operation Garden
• Operation Market - Air Operations

A couple of these have been created already but are in even worse shape than the main article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

German Victory

Every other Wikipedia article in the other languages states that this is a German Victory. I have never heard anything as stupid as an "Allied operational failure". Was the Battle of Britain and "Axis operational failure" too? Talk about dreaming! Wallie (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that well thought-out critique. There's been plenty of discussion about this in the archives, and 'Allied Operational Failure' was the consensus. Whilst 1st ABN was destroyed and Market-Garden thus not completely sucessful, it did capture a lot of ground and take several key areas, so it can't be seen as a pure failure. It chewed up a lot of German units as well. Thus, an operational failure, but not really a German victory either. I also moved your section down, as you managed to cut off a previous conversation. Skinny87 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wallie do you have any evidence other than your opinion and what other websites state to support the Germans won a victory? What victory did the Germans win? They defeated the 1st Airborne but lost half of Holland in the process. The historical consensus states the Allies failed, not that the Germans won. There is even published evidence to state the Allies won a strategic victory. Btw your comparison of a land battle vs an aerial battle in which the Luftwaffe was completly destroyed is a bit off centre - it doenst quite work.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the Germans suceeded in preventing the Allies achiving the objective of the operation it seems pretty clear that thay achieved a 'Victory'. Any claim that the Luftwaffe was completly destroyed in the Battle of Britain is a complete misrepresentation of the facts of that case. I think the comparison is pretty good. Tragino (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not literally mean they were completly destroyed. The examples do not match - the Luftwaffe failed to achieve any of its objectives and had the huge strategic impact that Sealion was called off.

To simpley state that the Germans halted the Allied force from gaining its ultimate objective equals a victory for them; i suggest going and looking at othere examples such as Operation Goodwood or Operation Epsom. In that last example they halted the British from achieving there ultimate objective and an operational victory is supported by historians along with an inconclusive tactical battle and a British strategic victory. Market-Garden is likewise not clear cut Germans won the Allies lost or vice versa.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this then. But I suggest re the BoB that if you don't mean something you don't write it, hyperbole doesn't help make your case here - I notice your deletion of 'say' and replacement with 'literally mean' in yor comment above. Tragino (talk) 15:4iterally mean'

There is an obvious bias towards the allied forces in this article. The Germans won a victory by defeating the offensive, inflicting twice as many casualties as they sustained in the process. Much of Holland remained in German hands untill the very last months of the war. And as for published material, there is far more sources for a German victory during Market Garden then for "Allied Operational Failure". Wallie has a valid point in that "German/Axis Operational Failure" could be used for several battles that the Allies won in such a case. --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to say. We need to state the truth, or as close as we can express it as possible. If someone attacks, and it doesn't work out, you can either say that it is a victory for the other side or an operational failure. But you must use the same terminology whether the allies are attacking or the axis. I think the time for biasing one side over the other should be gone after so much time has elasped since the end of the war. This is should be an historical document, not just another propaganda exercise. Wallie (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right that we need to be historical and not repeat myths - that's good advice for all articles ;). In this particular article we are dealing with one of the more controversial campaigns of WW2 however, which leads to a lot of contention. The question is not our personal biases, which are irrelevant, but what the sources say.

Normally in wikipedia the 'result' in the infobox is given in terms of the initiator. That is, Market-Garden was an allied operation so the result is given as "Allied failure" or some variant of that. Likewise, Operation Barbarossa is stated as 'German defeat'. Neither result is given from the perspective of the defender. So in this case, even if you have sources stating that there was a massive German defensive victory, the result would still be stated as "Allied failure".

I urge you to look at the archived discussion on this topic, which comes up again and again. Much of it is pretty thoughtful. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a propaganda exercise, and it is not a biased article. Consensus has been for the current result, and I don't see any point in returning to 'German victory/Allied failure' - this article requires subtlety, not black and white results. Skinny87 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Nirvana77 and Wallie provide some evidence to back up your opinions because when we last played this excerise we found that most historians (from the couple of the books i have on this subject) labeled this as an Allied Operation Failure. See the footnotes in the article for even further information.

Some various examples were provided before to show that battle results are not always black and white and that in halting an offensive you do not automatically "win". Chucking casualty figures around doesnt really help either considering, iirc, statistically its likely that an attacking force will incur more casualties than the defender.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the other language versions, Spanish, French, German etc. All say that this is a German Victory. Why is the English version out of step with everyone else in the world (as usual). Time to face facts, guys. This time the Germans won. Wallie (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Other wikipedia pages aren't reliable sources; actual reliable sources, ie academic studies, support the result this article has. Skinny87 (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wallie, looking at your other contributions, particularly the 81st Academy Awards and Winston Churchill, you seem to have something of an anti-British axe to grind, and I think that's what is on show here as well, for some reason. Previous consensus has been for 'Allied Operational Failure', and the sources support that as well; you need only look at the article itself. As I've said above, other wiki pages don;t count; they're never as rigorous as english wikipedia anyway, and wiki pages aren't reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Skinny. I'll answer that. I do not have an anti-British axe to grind. I just find the British seem to be biased. In the 81st Academy Awards, there was a large section in the intro saying how well the British had done, and that the Prime Minister had congratulated them. Other countries have won large numbers of awards in the past. There is no such bragging from them. Also, it was a largely Indian success. With Churchill, the whole article is positive. There is no mention of his ordering of the bombing of Dresden, which he did. The sources for the "Allied operational Failure" are also biased. I find this is an overall problem with Wikipedia. The English version is biased towards Britain and the other languages, normally biased against. This is hardly encyclopedic. Wallie (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why dont you just answer the point that has been brought up over and over again or bite the bullet - evidence....--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Wallie, myself and others have listed evidence for Allied operational failure and not German Victory. No source seems to support the verdict of 'German Victory'. But please, if you have sources that do state 'German Victory', then present them and we can take a look at them. But none of the sources I've come across have yet to even hint at a German victory, and I think I've got most of the major works on the operation. Skinny87 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil bad language in edit summaries is not in the sprit of things here. Perhaps it would help if you quote from these studies. Custom and practice across other articles is important to this question and the BoB analogy seems a good one to me. You'd be hard put to dismiss me as anti-British or anti-ABF biased Tragino (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For a listing of numerous references which refer to Allied Operational Failure as opposed to German Victory just scan up the page to the last discussion about this topic under the heading Decisive German victory?. This has been thrashed out several times a year for a while. Dabbler (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Market-Garden doesn't seem to have been called a defeat. Not a success, as Arnhem wasn't taken, but historical consensus certainly doesn't point towards a defeat, by any means. Things just can't always be as black and white as an area like the Battle of Britain. The BoB was a German defeat, as it gained nothing except heavy losses (if it had worn down the RAF in time for a second BoB, then 'German operational/strategic failure' whatever would be a better title), but Market-Garden did inflict heavy German losses and took a significant portion of ground. I'd recommend looking at Operation Goodwood et al, mentioned above; sometimes operations can be more than defeat/victory for each side. Skinny87 (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tragino you are not adding anything to this discussion at present and the comparison is poor whatever way you cut it. The outcomes are to different to compare; its comparing two different branches of the armed forces and there types of warfare - it is like attempting to compare naval battles with the WW1 western front.

Wallie, the wiki - even the most reliable pages, such as ones that have reached FAC standard, will only ever be a poor secondary source. The major, more reliable, secondary sources are the published materials - the ones, which we have, drew on and have failed, to so far see, anyone saying the Germans defeated the Anglo-Americans. The ones i have looked at all call it an 'Allied failure'. Provide evidence to the contrary and this will be a more productive discussion.

I would suggest you go and compare the different language versions of Operation Goodwood. The Spanish and German versions don’t even have an article on it while the German Battle of Caen article claims American and Polish forces were involved when they clearly weren’t. The French version states that Goodwood was a disaster and claims more lives lost than there was. So you see the others are not always spot on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To quote some recent academic research on Market-Garden by William F. Buckingham, I'll quote from his Arnhem 1944, p. 235. After casting doubts on whether the operation would have achieved the great strategic advances Montgomery claimed, Buckingham concludes with "...In the narrow sense, however, it is clear that Market Garden could have achieved all of its objectives, if only because despite all the errors, needless and otherwise, it was such a close run thing[...]The margin between success and failure was that narrow." I think that best sums it up; it failed, but it could have worked if things had just run a little better, and it certainly wasn't a defeat. Buckingham doesn't seem to mention the word 'defeat'; 'failure' certainly, but not defeat or 'German victory'. Skinny87 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. But let us avoid the errors of believing that it is always good to gain ground or that the casualty list is a good measure of anything else. The objective of MG was not met; the operation failed - the fundamental mission was not accomplished. This is true regardless of how many Germans became casualties, or how much ground was taken, or how 'close' anyone came. In fact (see discussion above on this very page) historians and generals have noted that the salient led nowhere and holding it used up units that could not then be massed elsewhere for more useful missions. The lost opportunity to do other operations instead of MG was also a huge strategic loss to the allies. The historical consensus for 'failure' is indeed quite strong. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You will rememeber that at least one historian, i believe quoted the above, proposed a different position on the worth of the ground. Its probably this position, which is debated about more by historians than the end result of the operation.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) I trust E.M.Flanagan Jr about as far as I can throw his book when it comes to airborne matters, but his appraisal of Market Garden also seems to back up Buckingham, stating that "An analysis of Market Garden shows a mix of success and failure." He also cites the official US Army Historian Ted Ballard, who states that Market Garden was a failure, not a defeat which reinforced in Eisenhower's mind the need for his broad-front strategy. That's Flanagan's Airborne: A Combat History of American Airborne Forces, p. 262. So failure, but not German victory as Wallie would have. Skinny87 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've gone through most of the books in my collection - Buckingham, Flanagan, Middlebrook, Tugwell, Harclerode, Warren, Flint and the others. I think it says something when even Max Hastings in his Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-1945, where he absolutely lays into the British military and the airborne commanders and troops with often unneeded venom and spite, doesn't mention anything about a German victory. That's what I'm getting from the sources, official, semi-official and non-official. Allied failure yes, but in no way a German victory. Skinny87 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Skinny excellent stuff - if i was you i would flesh out, or even add additional footnotes to the infobox to support the outcome.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In military science, a defeat is defined as a forced change of posture. Did, as a result of German pressure, the Allied I Airborne and XXX Corps switch from an offensive to a defensive posture? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point, Hawkeye. You know they did. But the sources don't mention anything about a German Victory. Skinny87 (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of these sources are based on allied observations. Therefore they are inherently biased. If you asked a German Commander about the Battle of Britain, they may call it a "tactical withdrawal" too. Wallie (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to lose patience here. Then what sources would you suggest - do you have any German sources that give it as a 'German victory'? I'd be interested to see them. Skinny87 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the Market-Garden articles on the German and Spain wikipedia's are a joke. The German one has practically no citations, especially none for the result of a German victory, and the Spanish one has about 30 cites, but half of them are explanatory notes and none of them support German victory either. In fact, the Spanish one states 'German tactical victory'. So the argument that the other wikipedia pages are a good basis is rubbish, frankly. I'm not trying to disparage the German/Spanish editors of those articles, but they aren't very good and are poorly cited. I can't believe the Spanish one is an FA! Skinny87 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of "it was a failure for" one side followed by something different from "but an equal success for" the other. Considering the objectives for the whole war, how could one side's loss be anything but a win for the other? The Allies' war objective was the unconditional surrender of Germany followed by the annihilation of the Nazi regime. With extreme stakes like that, any loss at any level suffered by one side has to be a gain enjoyed by the other. I think the belief that the Allies definitely failed (operationally, or what have you) but the Germans didn't clearly have an equal victory presumes that there is no such thing as a defensive victory. AngusCA (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you see it as a win-lose matter you're right but there's another way of looking at it which fits better with industrial warfare which is 'cost-benefit' analysis. The German effort to contain the advance into southern Holland succeeded but only because they committed resources to it. Many of them were expended in the operation - food, fuel, ammunition, equipment and men. Could the Germans have made better use of them elsewhere for a different purpose? They had lost the initiative between the Mortain counter-attack in Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge so you could conclude that any Allied attack before the Bulge forced the Germans to use forces defensively when they were trying to accumulate forces for their attack. Tactically, the fighting in Market-Garden captured ground which was used later to advance to the Rhine and it also allowed the used of Allied forces that were uncommitted and which were supplied from Britain so immune to the supply shortages caused by German retention of the French ports. The really big question is what the Allies could have done with the Arnhem bridge if they had captured it.Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "win-lose". Do you think I can't see anything between a total victory and total defeat? Far from it. It sounds like what you are talking about is spin-offs and peripheral effects of the operation. These things just serve to water down the Germans' victory, and thereby waters down the Allies' defeat.AngusCA (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish this would get solved once and for all. There are nosources that list Market-Garden as a German victory. Skinny87 (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Angus, you're inferring my motives which says something about yours. The gig had effects on all involved. This had effects on subsequent operations. The question to ask is 'did the depletion of Allied resouces by Market Garden have a greater or lesser effect than the depletion of German ones?' 'Did the changes in ground occupied work to Allied advantage or disadvantage?' In Normandy after Epsom the writing was on the wall for the Germans. Geyr von Schweppenberg said they should withdraw because a defence further inland would be more chaoic which would allow the Germans to take the initiative 'at times'. Market Garden looks to me to be analogous to Epsom - a net gain to the Allies which the Germans managed to stop having a strategic effect. How far the Allied leadership expected the gig to go in defeating the Germans - tactical, operational or strategic in its effect is difficult to gauge because they were deceiving each other, the politicians and the enemy at the time. From the German point of view the gig may have staved off the final collapse but not for much considering that they defended the Rhine on the west bank anyway and had nothing left once it was crossed.Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never once made any inference on your motives--not even inwardly. But since you've explicitly made one on mine, I guess that means yours are in question.

Ok, so if what you are saying is that the operation was a victory for the Allies, why is that not a defeat for the Germans?

Skinny87, that may be, but if I'm right, any source that lists Market-Garden as an Allied defeat implies a German victory. AngusCA (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Going down that line; practically all major D-Day objectives were not achieved, therefore the Normandy landings failed?

Implication is for professional historians, twisting what a historian has stated around to support a completely different statement is not appropriate for this project.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the discussion on this very same subject from last October, "The parallel with Normandy is perhaps instructive: the normandy landings accomplished the main objective (securing a lodgment) despite the fact that not all secondary missions were accomplished. The opposite is true of M-G: the main objective (a bridgehead across the Rhine) was not achieved, and the achievement of many secondary objectives is irrelevant in that context."

I don't know why we more or less continuously debate this issue. The weight of evidence amongst historians is quite strong - most write that the allied operation failed. What they "imply" is almost by definition WP:OR and should thus be avoided. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every Wiki page that made an implication based on a duly cited source...

Ok, so an implication, no matter how flawlessly logical, is original research. What if sources could be found that confirm that at that time of the war, there was indeed an effect of conservation of victory/defeat? AngusCA (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Angus, here's your implication 'Do you think I can't see anything between a total victory and total defeat?'. Morphy, who decides what is a 'secondary objective'? Capture of ground is only one thing to consider. The cost of fighting for it is another. Attrition isn't a secondary objective it's the essence of industrial warfare.Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Attrition is hardly the essence of modern warfare, but - what's this got to do with Market Garden? Let's stick to the purpose here, which is improving the M G article. I personally don't see this debate, which gets re-played every few months, as leading anywhere. A good argument can be made that the operation was a strategic failure for the allies and essentially a gift to the Germans. But I'm not going to bother going there, because "the cost of fighting for it" isn't worth it. The consensus now, for "Allied failure" or something close to that, is 'good enough'. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Attrition is the essence of industrial warfare because the massive desructive power of the weapons of the industrial revolution is neutralised (for a while) by the massive resources that empire states can mobilise for the repair of the destruction. The side that wins is the one which is best able to cope with the war of exhaustion. Strategic failure - probably correct although there is the caveat that it's prospects may have been deliberately exaggerated. Operational and tactical success - certainly.Keith-264 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(Following comment moved to current discussion area instyead of earlier one with the same heading) (od) For the love of god, I am getting pissed of at all of this; so I'm going to make one last proposal before I qwuit this article forever. We label the infobox result as 'Contested' or 'Debated' and link it to a section at the bottom of the artricle linked 'Historical views' or 'Historical debate' where we can list the various contemporary and modern arguments for M-G. Skinny87 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that no one has yet provided any reliable references which describe the operation as a German victory, only the cited references describing it as an Allied failure. You can't have a debate until you have opposing views and the only opposing one's expressed seem to be personal opinions not published academic books or articles. Dabbler (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the stupidity of WP:CONSENSUS. There are no sources that describe it as a German Victory, but seemingly uniformed editors repeatedly come wading in demanding it be changed, despite providing no evidence except their own views, and I'm getting tired of it. So maybe this, despite being an appalling option to me as a historian, will appease them. Skinny87 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I speak for all of my fellow uniformed(?) editors in saying: sorry, we had no idea that your eruditeness was being forced to read your discussion page. We certainly didn't intend to cause a situation that solicited terms like "stupidity" and "pissed off". This page is for discussion of uncertain issues. With talk like that, you are discouraging uninformed editors from stopping here before moving onto the main page. 76.10.138.244 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I will apologize for the language, I won't for the underlying comment - there are seemingly uninformed editors appearing out of nowhere and attempting to foist their opinions onto the article, which is annoying - especially when appear to have read no academic sources on the campaign, or base their opinions on poorly-written and cited wikipedia articles on foreign wikipedias. I also fail to see how the comments of a single person will discourage editors from coming here...gods it hasn't yet and I doubt it ever will... Skinny87 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Allied Operational Failure?

On Wikipedia Germany it says "Deutscher Sieg, Rückzug der Alliierten", which reads something like "German victory, allied retreat". Why the discrepancy? I think Wikipedia should be consistent throughout all the different language versions. Calling this an allied operational failure is laughable. Thats like saying the German army had no part what so ever; that even if there was no German army present there the Allies would have failed. We all know that is not true; that the German army had something to do with the failure. That being said, this is obviously a German victory. It is very childish not to admit when we've been beaten. I just checked many different Wikipedia's and found this:

Wikipedia Russia: Итог: Немецкая победа, тактическое поражение союзных войск, German Victory ---- Wikipedia Spanish: Resultado: Victoria táctica alemana, German Victory ---- Wikipedia France: Issue: Victoire allemande, German Victory ---- Wikipedia Italy: Esito: vittoria tedesca, German Victory ---- Wikipedia Netherlands: Resultaat Duitse overwinning, German Victory ---- Wikipedia Turkey: Sonuç: Almanyanın zaferi, German Victory ---- Wikipedia Portugal: Resultado: Vitória alemã, German Victory ---- Wikipedia Poland(EVEN POLAND FOR CHRISTS SAKE): Wynik: zwycięstwo Osi, Axis Victory

Wake up! Why is English Wikipedia the only one claiming an "allied operational failure"? Because we lost. Childish. It's like the kid who got beat up in school but tells everyone that the only reason he got beat up was because he didn't fight back. It's just excuses. LikeHolyWater (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh lord, not again. Please, I beg you - read the above comments and sections; unlike the other wiki articles, ours is actually sourced, and historians do seem to agree on 'Allied operational failure' and not something as black and white as 'Axis Victory'. Skinny87 (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're right and everyone else, including credible historians, are wrong? I can source ANYTHING if I know where to look, friend. Calling every other Wikipedia wrong is pretty ignorant, as almost all of them are also sourced. LikeHolyWater (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should provide some English language references which describe the event as a German Victory and/or Allied retreat instead of merely insulting all the editors who have worked on this article. We have found references, you claim that you can find other references which contradict this. Lets see. Though how far the Allies retreated when they moved the front line from the Belgian border to the south side of the Rhine, I will leave for you to explain. Dabbler (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Corbyn you will find that most people call the wikipedia pretty much incorrect, i agree that is a pretty ignorant view to take. What is even more ignorant, is to take for face value articles that have little to no source information attached to them (i.e. the Russian site, which contains incorrect strength information and only citations for casualty figures, which also look a little off. The Spannish article has not supporting evidence for the info box result and has a single inline citation within the results section and that is only in regards to ground captured. The French and Italian articles have no inline citations at all). The first thing a student of history is taught is to take articles that have no to little supporting evidence not at face value as nothing can be verfied.

Now here with this article at least, we have supporting evidence. You say you can get evidence that is to the contary of the consensus of credible historians and writers, who you will note we have sourced and have discussed in above sections - then instead of acting like you are provide something.

I would also suggest you go and read some of the sources out there some historians have called the operation an Allied strategic success.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe that the entire world sans the USA and UK can not be wrong. LikeHolyWater (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So is that a no you cant actually back up anything you have said? Prior to this you could source anything? You have ignored that an unsourced article isn’t worth much and you have ignored the fact the historical works looked at, and listed above, all agree with a conclusion that the operation failed. The rest of the world, in this case, is a few unsourced encyclopaedias, that are poor secondary source at any rate, either pipe up or find some secondary sources that counter Stephen Ashley Hart, Max Hastings, Milton Shulman, Dr. John C Warren and Chester Wilmot etc

Other than tactically defeating the British at arnhem and containing the offensive what did the Germans win? The Allies tactically defeated the Germans elsewhere and some historians believe that the operation split the German army group ensuring that no counterattack would take place for a few months.

The operation is not black and white: the Germans won the Allies lost. I would suggest looking at other operations to gain a better insight into military history, differing conclusions, and that the failure to achieve the overall objective does not mean the operation was defeated. i.e. Operation Epsom for example.

Am all for changing the article to reflect accuracy, however in the sources discussed so far the conclusion used appears to be pretty much the consensus of historians and military history writers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

>and that the failure to achieve the overall objective does not mean the operation was defeated.

...yeah, it does.

Even if we can't quite trust Monty's contemporaneous and later statements about the operation ("90% successful"), in some strict, countable sense, it wasn't a complete failure. Nazis died. Nazi resources were consumed. Nazi planners had yet another contingency to plan for in future operations. I.e., "Allied operational failure" is simplistic, but then, three words to describe a very complex situation can hardly fail to be.

In a broader picture, LikeHolyWater, all you're doing is pointing out that there are certain topics in Wikipedia where a balanced view can't be given, because it is "politically incorrect". In Germany, it's incorrect to say the Nazis lost, in the UK and US, it's incorrect to say they won. As a more obvious example, just try changing a Wiki article for a pop star to emphasize that they are a drug addict, a criminal, and that much of their creative work is done by someone else. (Note how many articles emphasize how much money a star makes?) Even with all its reliance on reliable cited sources, Wiki is still a product of our society -- and microcosms within our society. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article, Needs much more factual information

The article is written almost entirely from an "Allied" perspective and nearly totally lacks any corresponding or corroborating accounts from the "Axis" forces involved. This is a serious oversight and throws the article into a dubious light. There is a dearth of factual information, and a distict lack of cross-referenced sources which are requisite to any wartime historical research. While the article makes a nice bedtime story, it cannot be taken seriously as a piece of historical research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.20.195 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

While i agree that the article is somewhat over focused on the Allied forces the comment that it is all make believe is a load of crap - at least 125 cited pieces of information are currently in the article from a multitute of sources.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there many sources about the German side in English? Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"It never snows in September" is the best one. There's also this website: Defending Arnhem about the Arnhem area of battle. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC) (formerly psychostevouk)

The website is mostly uncontruction, sure your not plugging it? At any rate is everything on the website sourced? Sure the website provides a list of references but does appear to have any footnotes or inline citations and uses unpublished sources making it, unfortuantlly, worthless for this project.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanna rephrase that? I'm not 'plugging' anything EnigmaMcmxc. I merely answered a question. If I was plugging it I've left it kinda late in life wouldn't you say? I have nothing to do with the site, I'm well aware of its rather incomplete nature, and thank you but other people are able to make their own judgement about a website's validity. I recall an earlier discussion with you when you questioned this website's validitiy, despite its information being drawn from books, which you prefer, and the official Arnhem roll of honour. Don't you dare accuse me of using Wikipedia as a means of advancing my own work when you haven't got any serious knowledge of a site yourself. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow is it your time of the month or something? No i don’t want to rephrase anything and ill dare to do anything i damm well please! The original question posed was in regards to the faulty nature of this article and the lack of source material to support it; you then present a website that is under construction and with material that cannot be verified at all and states it uses material that has not been published making it worthless when looking at the procedures the wiki has in place (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources - its seems a reasonable conclusion to jump to.

Its a little sad how you also jump to attacks, you will note that i did backtrack over my confusion of information presented in the secondary source (which did appear to cock up) and at any rate if anything in life is certain, other than death, is that everything is open to questioning. I also stand by the points you have shown in that edit that a) that website doesn’t back up all of its information making its verifiability difficult and b) that two weakened kampfguppe do not equal elite panzer divisions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Enigma, whilst I respect your excellent edits on articles, especially this one, I really think you should read articles like Wikipedia:Civility rather than Wikipedia: Be Bold when it comes to editing talk pages. Being bold in claiming another editor is being underhand is not encouraged there. You'll notice I've never tried to include this page in the article, nor have I presented it in evidence of something. I merely answered a question. Talk pages are fairly fluid, so I thinks its safe to assume that most people will realise my answer was in relation to Keiths question and not some sort of misguided support for what the IP editor had to say. For what it's worth, the only reason I mentioned it was for its references to English language documents in answer to the query. I, like most people can work out that the site isn't great, but if I were interested in further research it makes a useful start. Not a reference in the article. To settle your last 2 points: My reasoning for mentioning it is that the website was correct, when the Offical History was wrong, and I never addressed the panzer divisions. Deleting the talk page history certainly was backtracking. Read my post again, the issue was with the accusation that I'm self promoting, not references. I'm not gonna be drawn into a squabble and I don't want to start a fight (I don't go out of my way to start disagreeing with editors), so I won't be drawn into posting on this subject again. But I won't be accused of self promoting, which anyone should realise I am not doing. Keith, this is the only stuff I know of. I'd be happy to know if anyone else knows any more. regards Ranger Steve (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you, as well, should read the civility article: the carful wording of replies doesnt stop the "message" from getting across. From one word, you give me an utter gob full and expect me not to stand my ground? I voiced my opinion that the website seems worthless in regards to helping further enhance the article and you give me further abuse. Instead of attepting to take the high road now you could have simpley stated "no you have misunderstood" before - its not hard.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, one last post. You have misunderstood. What gob full? What word? What further abuse? What message.? Please don't accuse me of self promoting. I haven't accused you of anything else. Everything else I have said is evidence or reasoning for not doing so. That's all. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Battle took place in the Netherlands so I removed Germany because the German soil was not involved during Market Garden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.151.118 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually a small portion of the fighting took place across the border in Germany, around the Nijmegan area. Although only a small percentage of the battlefield, it's geographically correct. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ranger, do you have any of these non-Allied sources you refer to? The only one apart from 'It Never Snows...' that I know of is DRZW which was a disappointment - its historiography was about the level of John Ellis Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, but here are links to 2 of the most promising looking texts - German armour in Arnhem and In the firestorm of the last years of the war. I'm afraid my German's lousy, so I don't know anything of the German material referenced or whether it exists in English. I think though that in the texts already in the ref list there is probably enough material to make the article a little less biased (which I agree in many places it is). Enough is known about Kraffts block of 1 and 3 Btn for example, to include more detail and write it from the German perspective (ie. Instead of writing "The allies did this and this, but then they stopped because of Germans", it should read more like "As the allies did this, the Germans were doing that, which led to this and stopped the allies). Kinda basic example! Ranger Steve (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Double Images

Hi folks. I've noticed there are two versions of the same image floating around, and I think I've found which one is correct. One is here and the other here. I'm fairly sure the second (ie. British caption) image is correct, and this would seem to back it up. I'm going to bring it up at wikicommons. Is everyone ok with removing the picture from this article? Ranger Steve (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

XXX Corps

'In Valkenswaard engineers were moved up to construct a 190 foot (58 m) Class 40 Bailey bridge over a stream, which was completed within 12 hours.[93]'

Erm would you really need 190 feet of bridge to cross a 'stream'? Wouldn't such a thing cause a delay that was an obvious thing to consider in the planning of the gig?Keith-264 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a stream and a crater; guess it depends how wide the stream is but i dont quite get why they had to bridge a crater unless it was on the road.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a lot of boggy ground either side? It seems incongruous to call it a stream though.Keith-264 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the the only reference for this (except a snippet on Google Books) but I wonder if it is a misunderstanding of the replacement of the Son bridge over the Wilhelmina canal which took about 12 hours and was about that long. "Fog of war" perhaps as the reference seems to be a memoir not a history. Dabbler (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Currently the article states the Son Bailey bridge wasn't requested until Day 2, but Ryan says that XXX corps knew the Son bridge had been destroyed on day 1. It seems likely (to me at least) this is the moving of the Bailey bridge forward through XXX Corps column in preparation for the following day. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Am pretty sure it is near word for word for what it states in the book, later on i recall it then also talking about the Son bridge as a seperate issue. If i remember ill get back to you all tonight.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In an anorak mood I looked up Valkenswaard yesterday on a map thingy. I couldn't see much of a river but there is one there called the Dommel which Wiki calls a creek. Could that be the culprit? I did notice that the photos of rivers in the area shows them banked up, which presumably means the water level changes a lot. The river may have not been much but the watercourse it runs through could have been a lot wider? Keith-264 (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the banks would explain it - infantry can cross a little stream and some banks but the motorised elements and the tanks are buggered hence the big ass bridge and the crater i would image was on the usuable road? The town was also the limit of day 1s advance while Son was the limit of Day 2s advance (Major Randall, Map 18) so i think its fair to say the author hasnt got things confused.

Gill states on page 71 quite clearly: "The engineers were called in at Valkenswaard to bridge an entirely unexpected gap over a stream and crater, and, in twelve hours, a 190 feet Class 40 Bailey Bridge was built. At six o'clock the next morning the Guards, again led by the Irish Guards Group, continued the advance....by the evening.... linked up.... at Eindhoven."--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On Page 72 Gill states "..bridge...at Son was blown....engineers, aided by German prisoners, worked like demons, and at first light the 5th Guards Brigade was able to cross a Class 40 bridge, hat had been built in ten hours..."

On page 73 he mentions how the Grae bridge had been holed in places and was improved to Class 70 standards within three days.

Seems pretty conclusive. I'm surprised other authors don't seem to have picked up on this. I can't help but wonder if this was another reason for the delay in the advance to Eindhoven (12 hours would be a good reason to stop, rather than it just being dark and there being less of a rush because of Son, which is what I normally read), although I suppose it isn't entirely clear if this stopped the advance totally or just improved the road. Seems like a pretty major delay to me either way though - I'd have thought at least equal to Son. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question isn't it? When did XXX Corps know that the Son bridge was blown? 190 feet is 63 yards which still looks a lot. That said the big road and rail bridges in Holland often have long ramps up to them so perhaps that is part of the explanation?Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_bridges

According to Ryan, who I flicked through earlier today, XXX Corps knew about Son on Sunday night. CoS of Guards told Vandeleur to "push onto Eindhoven tomorrow.. but take your time.. We've lost a bridge" hence the lack of urgency in meeting the day's objective of reaching 101st. Seems like a good reason to get moving if you ask me, but perhaps they had to wait for the bridging equipment anyway. But then... if they had bridging equipment to sort out a stream at Valkenswaard.....

Either way, needing to wait for bridging at Valkenswaard seems a good reason for a delay overnight, but no-one seems to have noticed it before (that I can think of). Ranger Steve (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Got some more gen. According to Battleground Europe, the bridge over the Dommel just south of Valkenswaard was intact and crossed at 5.30pm. However it was quite narrow and so to eliminate the choke point a bailey bridge was laid alongside it on Monday morning. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And a bit more about it here Ranger Steve (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From the RE museum page it states "During the advance to Eindhoven XXX Corps Troops RE had to build a bridge south of Volkenswaard to relieve congestion on a narrow diversion which had been used to get the leading troops round the demolished bridge on the main road." - this must be what Gill is on about. Although do the troops cross an intact bridge that is destroyed? lol Perhaps they crossed the river/stream by 5.30 and then the bailey bridge was laid for the motorised/mechanzied elements during the night?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Battleground Europe has a lot of detail on a recce on the bridge a few days before, and the need to take a bulldozer in the advance in case the bridge was blown. The Irish Guards Historian is quoted at length and states that although the bridge "was only a temporary structure, was intact and fit to carry tanks..." Tanks moved into town 'cautiously' and a photo shows Valkenswaard full of tanks on Monday morning too. It looks like the bridge was already a narrow temp one and was supplemented pretty quickly. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Ranger!Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tanks in the town in the morning would only serve to prove that the bridge was knocked up overnight and pretty sharpish too though - if it was down, which some sources seem to suggest while other do not. Do we have any additional sources that talk about the actions of the Guards in the town, does any one have access to their divisional history?

Major Ellis states that it was 7:30 when the Guards banguard reached Valkenswaard.(Ellis, p. 34). I checked out Wilmot and Hastings and they seem to glance over Valenswaard and talk about the Son bridge.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not the official history, but as I said lots of quotes from the Irish Guards Historian in Battleground Europe. No2 Sqn and No4 Coy advanced into town behind an artillery barrage, and at 9.40 pm the Guards radioed that the "IG Group is in centre of Valkenswaard and has blocked all approaches" I don't think I've seen a single source that says the Guards weren't in Valkenswaard that night. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No one has said the opposite - i made some unsourced speculation above -, i agree that the Guards were in posession of the town that night it just seem the sources seem to be a bit confused at what time they actually got there, what route they took and if a bridge had to be put up or not and if so where.

If someone had access to the divisional history i think that would, hopefully, put to rest those questions and we can use the sources we have to establish a correct timeline in the article--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to imply anyone had, just confirming that tanks (Guards were armoured after all) got into town before the day was over (ie before the 12 hours needed to build a bailey bridge). I don't think there's that much confusion on time/route etc.. though, there seems to be agreement that they got there in the evening, and the bridge was an extension of the existing one, built (slightly) later on in the advance. I'd have thought the guards official historian, the RE museum website, and barely any-one else saying anything different was good enough? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But the RE Museam doesnt state that; it claims the bridge was built because the main bridge was destroyed and the alternative route was blocked. Gill, one of the two XXX Corps historians, claims that bridge was built over the stream and other blockages. What is the full statement of the Irish Guard historian as the above seems a little ambigious.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"The report that the bridge, though only a temporary structure, was intact and fit to carry tanks was welcome, as no-one was looking forward to spending part of the night in the woods with the bazooka boys... The reshuffle of groups and the crossing of the bridge took some a considerable time. No2 sqn and No4 coy approached Valkenswaard... we finally battered our way into the place." As I said there is also a lengthy account about Lt Buchanan-Jardine being the first Allied soldier to enter the Netherlands when he recced the bridge (which was up and capable of supporting a Mark IV) and was awarded the MC for his dash through German positions. Even so, the Guards took a bulldozer in case they needed it (I don't know how this would have helped, presumably steep banks and a stream like width would have meant a dozer could just fill it in), but didn't need it. Later Saunders states the bridge was a choke point by Monday morning and a Bailey was laid alongside it. The RE museum also says to relieve congestion, not a blockage. Gill doesn't claim the building of a bailey bridge was a delay from what I can see either, just that the need to do it wasn't necessarily expected. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What bridge are they on about though, the main one the RE claims was destroyed or the alternative one used?

This is how the end of that section currently stands: The fighting soon died down and the advance resumed. By last light the town of Valkenswaard had been reached and occupied by the Irish Guards Group.

Horrocks had expected that the Irish Guards would have been able to advance the 13 miles (21 km) to Eindhoven within two-three hours, however they had only covered 7 miles (11 km). The operation was already starting to fall behind schedule. In Valkenswaard engineers were moved up to construct a 190 foot (58 m) Class 40 Bailey bridge over a stream, which was completed within 12 hours.

With all the information given above, bar the info talking about the bridge being useable for the momment, I think we should change the section to something like this:

The fighting soon died down and the advance resumed. During the early evening the Irish Guards Group reached the outskirts of Valkenswaard; (Ellis and Battleground Europe) the main bridge into the town had been destroyed and an alternative route was used,(RE Museum) and by last night the Irish Guards had liberated/occupied the town.(Gill, Randel, Ryan, Battleground Europe) To relieve congestion (RE Museum) engineers were moved up to construct a 190 foot (58 m) Class 40 Bailey bridge across an unexpected gap over a stream and a crater, which was completed within 12 hours.(Gill)

Horrocks had expected that the Irish Guards would have been able to advance the 13 miles (21 km) to Eindhoven within two-three hours, however they had only covered 7 miles (11 km). The operation was already starting to fall behind schedule.(Ryan)

Thoughts?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno... the more I read this the more I think it's getting too much detail in the battle sections. Besides, we've 3 refs that don't fully agree so trying to piece together the exact events doesn't really produce a satisfactory result. Whatever this bridge was for, it didn't delay the entry into Valkenswaard enough to be considered a delay to the advance. I think a separate subsection (maybe in day 2) about the Garden logistical problems might be a good way to deal with this info. It can cover the traffic jams that had already sprung up, narrow roads and choke points and make the point that these problems would persist through the entire operation. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Gill, one of the XXX corps historians, supports they were in the town by evening and only gives details on what the bridge covered and stats etc - the other sources seem to provide the answer for why it was built.

In regards to the battle sections getting to detailed, i think they have do otherwise the reader will not get a good idea about what happened and why etc. Prehaps the article should be split further, although the question would then be how and where.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division

The 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division would be flown to the captured Deelen Airfield on D+5.

I think this point needs to be expanded upon, what captured airfield? Who was to sucure for the Scots to land?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

XXX Corps would advance north after crossing the Rhine and split the German forces by reaching the IJsselmeer. On the way they'd take Deelen airfield and fly in the 52nd, evacuate the Glider pilots, and (I think) establish an fighter base. I think it needs more detail in the Garden section rather than Market. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hunger winter

"Due to the Allied defeat at Arnhem, the north of the Netherlands could not be liberated before winter and the Hongerwinter ('Hungerwinter') took tens of thousands of lives, particularly in the cities of the Randstad area." As written, this seems to essentially blame the Allies for the starvation of Dutch civilians. Surely the Germans had something to do with it? How would this best be clarified? DMorpheus (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think because the Dutch striked during MG (ordered by the Dutch government in exile), the Germans banned all inland freight movement, so no food got from the north and and east (where its produced) to the west. That's just a quick look in my Pitkin guide, but I'm sure I might have a more detailed ref here somewhere...... Ranger Steve (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not a lot more info than that I'm afraid. How about removing the line altogether and replacing it with something along the lines of:

An unforseen result of the battle was the Hongerwinter (Hungerwinter) which took thousand of lives over the following months.

There seems enough detail in the link to explain it beyond that, or ideally it could then have more detail in the aftermath section. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no direct couse from the failed MG to the famine in western Holland, winter 1944-45. E.g.: had MG been successfull, there were no consequence of western Holland (cities) being otherwise. I suggest to (and am willing to) change the intro. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a bit of one, as the intro explains. The Dutch government in exile ordered the railway strike to coincide with the allied assault on the country. The Germans, still being in a position to do so because MG failed, forbade food movement as a punishment. It's a subject covered in almost all of the sources connected to MG too. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(My clog broken): OK then for the "bit" part, except for the "unforseen": Dutch wiki writes Germany had threatened beforehand with a no-food against a strike. But above all: the defeat was hugely strategic. It took the war half a year longer. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RAF air reconnaissance photos

Is there a source for these photos? Have they been declassified, and ever published? Was the unit to which the armoured vehicles belonged positively identified, and what were the vehicles?--121.217.128.27 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the request for Arnhem area overflight from Major Urquhart was passed on to nearby RAF Benson's No. 106 Group. But due to bad weather the actual flight was performed 72 hours later by No.16 Sqn which had already moved to France. However, this is unconfirmed because one source says the 16th flew it, but another says the request went to RAF Benson which was also the HQ for all PR flying (Coastal Command). More support for this would be appreciated--121.217.20.152 (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a minor detail at best for the entire article, Mrg, and is probably delving into WP:Original Research now. Also, can you stop adding details from Middlebrook if you don't have the actual book? I can't spend all my time following you around, citing what you leave. Skinny87 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Research in Wikipedia terms is only where there are no citations. In fact the article is full of such instances now, which is why it is no longer a featured article.

The subject of the images is something I need for offline research, so you are correct in that it is not all that important for the article, though I am fascinated to see them.

In fact I have come to realise why Browning dismissed them. The depiction in the movie was entirely fictional. What the images probably show is a number of Depot vehicles, that is AFVs belonging to the SS panzer units that were trucked in before the rail movement was completed because they could not be loaded under own power. To Browning, an infantryman, this looked only like a potential threat that is unlikely to eventuate in the time frame, but Maj. Urquhart had served in Italy and had seen armoured unit repair depots images before, and knew that where there are mechanics, there must be some running gear. What he saw was Panthers, and indeed the 9th SS only had two running Panthers left, but the 10th SS had a full company, entrained. THIS is OR, or educated guess. Browing also knew there was some limited armour, certainly the ex-French tank company and the training company, but the 1st Airborne had literally hundreds of anti-armour weapons, from PIATs to 17-pdrs.

Middlebrook's request was, I believe, the first on the article, and if you filled it, thank you. It seems to me I will not be posting too many such requests because I am moving hopefully from a good military library to an even better one, or two. As it happens I just can't make it there now because of the logistics at the moment.--121.217.20.152 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on 'Allied operational failure' was wrong

Ok, the source provided for this 'consensus' is from 1956, so can't really be held to be current understanding given all the research that has gone into the operation since, or all the information that came to light since.

However, lets examine logical arguments with known facts thrown in for good measure.

• The plan was conceived by Montgomery, the commander of 21st Army Group, a strategic formation.

• He sought approval from Eisenhower to use SHEAF strategic reserve forces, the First Allied Airborne Army.

• The planning called for outflanking the German strategic defensive line - the Siegfried Line (actually Geldernstellung)

• The rationale behind it was to invade German strategic industrial area in the Ruhr which was previously strategically bombed. Eisenhower envisaged this as the initial thrust that would lead to Berlin! In the same source there is a direct quote from Eisenhower to Montgomery confirming that the objective for the operation is the Ruhr, and not the bridge at Arnhem, or even all the bridges in the operation MARKET combined.

• The other most important asset required for the operation was the IX Troop Carrier Command, removed from HQ Ninth Air Force which was renamed as HQ UNITED STATES STRATEGIC AIR FORCES IN EUROPE. (caps in article)

• The overall commander appointed for it was a USAAF General, who previously commanded the 9th USAAF, a strategic level officer.

• Despite focus often given in the operation to the combat for the Arnhem road bridge, or emphasis on bridges in general, that was NOT the operation's objective; the movement of the XXX Corps through it was. The logistic planning was however carried out at the Second Army level because Corps for the Western Allies was not a strategic formation, but it was intended to move through a strategic corridor created by securing the bridges as strategic choke points.

• The movement of the XXX Corps was NOT, as suggested by Browning in his briefing, through 64 miles TO the Arnhem bridge, but through the bridge and to over 120 miles, at least, in the attempt to threaten Dortmund (Northern Ruhr). However, even 64 miles was way beyond ' operational depth ' of the Wehrmacht forces (usually 20 miles at most), proven by the fact that the II SS Panzer Corps was going to settle in for a refit 10 miles north of Arnhem in relative strategic safety from combat!

• The ground part of the operation was not even an ' operational manoeuvre ' that would qualify if for an 'operational victory' (which would be misinterpretation anyway). An operational manoeuvre, a concept that did not exist in the terminology of the Western Allied doctrine until 1970s, involves feeding fresh troops into the line to achieve breakthrough against an unprepared enemy. Anyone who has read Horrocks' retelling of this operation will know that his XXX Corps commenced the operation from march, i.e. without allowing any out of line refit and preparation for such a breakthrough. (Its even in the movie!) The only thing he was able to do is to shorten his sector of the front to enable force concentration, seemingly with not much success. However, on the whole it was a Second Army general offensive because there is NO WAY that a Corps can sustain an offensive intended to continue for 120miles! The proof is in the leading elements of the other two Army's corps being temporarily cross-assigned to US Airborne divisions.

• • As an aside, I question the mathematical abilities of Horrocks who says that the pace in the week before commencement of GARDEN slowed substantially from the 250 miles in six days 'advance'. This is after informing the reader that he was at the end of a 300 mile Normandy beaches logistic tether. Obviously it seeks to disassociate the laborious two-month 50-mile Normandy breakout campaign from the subsequent strategic pursuit of the Wehrmacht forces that escaped the (incomplete) Falaise Pocket. Had this been seen in its true colours, it might have given Montgomery pause before trying for a 65-mile offensive in two days...or four as Browning offered.

Therefore the ONLY conclusion is that the outcome of the operation was an 'Allied strategic failure'--121.216.215.96 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. An updated study to that of Warren exists by Bilstein, Airlift and Airborne Operations in World War II, Air Force History and Museum Program, 1998, p.33--121.216.215.96 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

All interesting stuff but erm ... do you have sources Mrg that state the operation was a strategic failure in place of your opinion?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the article lacks sources and this is why the consensus probably arrived at this conclusion, not heaving read those that explain my points above, though I think rudementary reading and logic would have sufficed. I'm in the process of moving cities over the next two weeks, but will try to transfer the points above to the article, appropriately referenced of course.--203.51.89.250 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realise your premise for all the above points is wrong? The literature consulted thus far have talked about the operation on neither tactical, operational or strategical level they simpley stated the operation failed full stop; that the operation was a failure. I would suggest looking back through the archives, it isnt one source from 1956 it was every book we looked at, that we had access to. In relation to that, two sources actually did speak of the strategic level, one stated the ground captured was worthless iirc and the other regarded the operation as a strategic success due to the German Army Group being split and removing their ability to counterattack.

Throwing the word "strategic" around at everything doesnt really support your case above nor does it seem to advance what happened; it would really seem to support the consensus that the opertion failed to achive its objectives. Surely "strategic" should be held in reserve for the outcome that resulted in 21st AG achieveing its objectives or the Germans launching a massive counterattack that had strategic results?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of Warren...or misuse

Having finally obtained a copy of this document (link in references didn't work for me for some reason), I am nothing short of astounded at the suggestion that a claim of 'operational failure' can be based on it.

• In the section on planning the operation Warren clearly states that Montgomery requested a halt to further operations in Belgium...that's a whole country!
• The actual chapter on the operation is called - The Airborne invasion of Holland...that's another country!
• Of course the objective of the operation was to invade Germany....that's a third country, and the primary enemy in the war!

How then can this be anything BUT a strategic operation that failed?

Your premise here is also invalid; the quote was taken from C.Ryna's work and he quoted Warren as saying "Thus ended in failure the greatest airborne operation of the war .... All objectives save Arnhem had been won, but without Arnhem the rest were as nothing".

No one has suggested that the operation failed either. Thank you for enlighting us to the fact that Belgium, Holland and German are countries and that we were fighting the Germans - we should really have these facts wrote down somewhere.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of the Warren study to determine the outcome of the operation is quite unwarranted (pardon the pun) since it only deals, as it must being an Air Force study, with one half of the operation, MARKET.

So how about sources that deal with the GARDEN operation's objectives?

MacDonald is used, but seemingly the conclusion there, which was made in the context of total European Theatre operations and not just air operations, was not used for the establishment of a 'consensus. And that is:

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. (p.198)

and

But even here there is error. While great resources went into the operation MARKET, the only additional resources directed to operation GARDEN was an additional 1,000ton of supplies a day in logistic support! On the ground there was no substantial increase in offensive capability of the 2nd Army or the XXX Corps within it, and no change in doctrinal thinking to attempt achievement of such capability by enabling force multipliers such as deception, surprise, speed, emphasised by no less a person than Eisenhower, or even mass if it came to last resorts.--121.216.215.96 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No way a corps can maintain an offensive for how many miles? The Western Desert Force, Afrika Korps and the Japanese invasion force for Malaya managed to. The small increase in supply for the ground troops may have something to do with 2nd army being rather muted outside XXX Corps' area. You might also compare Market-Garden with other 2nd army operations like Epsom and Goodwood.Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are trying to rewrite history. The Western Desert Force was not an independently operating Corps, and neither was the Afrika Corps. And, though I am unaware of the Japanese designation, the Japanese forces that took Malaya were certainly not belonging to an independent Corps either.

Western Desert Force was attached to a theatre headquarters, that didnt move forward during the operation. Compass was designed by Wavell as a minor attack and resulted in the WDF, unattached to anything else, launching something like a 500 mile advance that destroyed the Italian 10th Army. Likewise the Afrika Korps mission was to block further advances into the Italian colony, i dont recall it being within the Italian OOB at this time and it sought orders from OKH back in Germany; given the ok to launch a minor raid by OKH Rommel's Corps, with the Ariete and Brescia under his command, launched a counteroffensive that advanced to the Egyptian border. Thats not rewriting history thats what happened.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a chain of command in M-G. It went Eisenhower -> Montgomery -> Dempsey/Brereton -> Brereton/Browning (Ridgeway) initially and Dempsey/Browning on contact -> Horrocks though Horrocks assumed command of the airborne units as they came into his physical contact. It was Dempsey who convinced Montgomery to order the 1st Airborne to abandon its positions and withdraw south across the Neder Rijn.

The article as it is now gives the impression tha tthe operation was all about the airborne forces, and that the XXX Corps was a secondary, and almost independent and sole ground force in the events described. This, is not so.

I reiterate that the primary objective was to cross the Rhine with substantial mobile ground forces, and the secondary objective was to continue an offensive into Germany's Ruhr region. The MARKET part was the facilitating operation, but in the even of the failure of the GARDEN, it has become the mythical raison d'etre of the ten days of operations starting on the 17 September.--203.51.89.250 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How big was Market-Garden compared to Normandy, Italy, Sicily . . . ?Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

While you may ramble on a bit to attempt to get your point across i do agree with you that article is rather airborne heavy and more work needs going into it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Small edit

Just to clarify a minor edit I've just made in case anyone wonders why I've removed a referenced sentence: I really don't think the surrender of Frost, and Gough taking command at the Bridge 'set in train Operations Pegasus...'. Digby Tatham Warter was captured at the Bridge, escaped, and subsequently organised the Operation. He certainly doesn't imply that the surrender at the bridge had any direct bearing on the subsequent events in the ref that was linked to this. Even if he was the subject of the sentence it seems a tenuous link at best. Be good to have links to Operation Pegasus later in the article though..... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

allied menpower

iam sure that one of u have numbers for allied menpower, why they are not included in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

xxx corps

casualties of XXX corps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well my Dad was wounded, when his Sherman was hit by a German shell, for one. 192.75.48.150 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ok so we have at least 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriosuly, have you even checked the article? XXX Corps losses have been in there for at least the last year. Although, admittetly, someone had incorrectly edited the section and mislabled the area for Second Army and 1st Airborne losses.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting point in that table though. According to their linked articles, I Airborne Corps covers the British and both American Divisions, whilst XVIII Airborne Corps (United States) also covers both American Divisions..... Should it be a link to 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom) instead of I Airborne Corps? Also the Dutch figure only relates to Arnhem dead, and doesn't cover those killed elsewhere in the corridor. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Until about a month and a half back that table section was labelled "British and Polish" and was changed by an anon user to I Airborne Corps. Today i just added in the Second Army link but didnt have time to look at what or who made up the Airborne Corps. I did look over the information in the note and that covers Second Army, the Poles and the 1st Airborne.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

adding gen. Sosabowski to list of commanders

Yesterday I added Gen. Sosabowski, to list of Allied commanders, but it was reversed. Why this Polish general aren't listed? He played important role in preparing and commanding this operation. 94.101.16.13 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion here in the archive where it was agreed that he should not be included because he was only a brigade commander and the others were corps and divisional commanders. Dabbler (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

His role was significant and he was part and parcel of the planning and execution although he was the one who believed the failure of the operation was highly likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vumba (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So were other brigade commanders, we do not list any of them. Dabbler (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Sosabowski was a major general, I'd even go along with his inclusion if the division commanders were mentioned. This would add six or seven names to each list. But they are not; the decision was taken to draw the line at the three-star level. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)