Could the war have ended in 1944 if the Allied plan for MARKET GARDEN had instead chosen a crossing at the river Wesel?
Three reasons to suggest this could have been the decisive blow that the planners of MARKET GARDEN hoped for:
1. The Wesel was more lightly defended than Arnhem.
2. It would have meant one less river crossing, therefore reducing the need for bridging equipment and lessening the chances of being held back by demolition.
3. The Wesel would have brought the attack within easy reach of support from Bradley's 12th US Army.

I think that Eisenhower didn't give Monty enough fuel and supplies for his advancing armies - who were hurrying to reach the 82nd and the 101st airborn division. (Not to forget the Polish airborn troops)

But there was just a very good divisions - under the commando of Student - in Arnhem.

__________________

Wrong.

Montys men as well as Gavins men, Vandeleurs men, the men of the 101st and Sosoboskies (SP?) men all ran into fierce German resistance. Ike gave Monty all he needed for a successful attack. Its not Ikes fault that two Waffen SS Panzer Divisions just happened to be resting in the area.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Carl is right. The main flaw of the perfect plan "Market-garden": its own creator, who was not the adequate man to perform such an intrepid plan...

And I think that the Rhine river was the one to attack, because of its importance. You cross it and you take the industrial heart of Germany. There's no way that Germany could have made war without its iron and coal mines there, the tanks, ammunition, guns and planes factories there...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

The allied brass knew the 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions were around Arnhem, so just how in the hell did they really expect the 1st Division boys to hold out? And with German delaying actions in the previous towns coupled with the horrid road conditions to hamper the progression of allied armor, "Market Garden" was not without great risk. To me, the tight shcedule on the armored advance demanded by allied planners was about as goofy as Hitler's plan to capture allied fuel depots to refuel his panzer's during "Autumn Mist."

__________________

I dont think that the 1st Division were aware that they were jumping on top of two Panzer Divisions. They thought that they would be fighting against boys and old men, not experienced troops of frontline calibre.

I feel that it was the fierce German reisitance (like you said C. Evans) that brought Market Garden to a failure.

__________________
And when he gets to heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I have served my time in hell

Urquhart may not have known but I believe his seniors knew. Besides, those SS units which were not totally destroyed in the Falaise-Argentan pocket had to be somewhere.

__________________

True they did have to be somewhere but the Allied Commanders knew that the Germans were on their hind legs and were retreating much faster than the Allied advance. And anyway there was no reason to believe that there should be Panzer Troops in Arnhem, it was a coincidence that the two divisions were sent to rest in the area.
The Allies were also getting reports from the Dutch Underground about tanks, troops etc, nbut they chose to continue the operation.

__________________
And when he gets to heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I have served my time in hell

Weren't elements of Hitler Jugend 12th SS there as well?

__________________

Time flies! Must go to school in couple of hours. Gute Nacht.

__________________

I don't think they were wilconqr, I haven't heard about them being in Holland anyway. I've heard of this division before though. Weren't the Hitler Jugend 12th SS involved in the murder of 130 Canadians from the Winnipeg Rifles in the days just after D Day ?

__________________
And when he gets to heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I have served my time in hell

There were many flaws in Market Garden but it has to be said that the all-important ingredient of luck wasn't always on the Allies side.
It was certainly a stroke of ill fate that Field Marshal Model, one of the best German generals, happened to be on the spot. His reaction was a model (pun intended) of flexible response.
Secondly, it was another unlucky break when the Arnhem battle-plan acquired from a shot-down American officer fell into German hands within hours.
I'm not sure if the presence of 2 Panzer Divisions near Arnhem (although at 30per cent strength) was down to bad luck entirely. As Jet says, the Dutch resistance had forewarned them.

Totally agree with you Leo. Market Garden was just blessed with bad luck:

The Radios did not work

2 Panzer Divisions happened to be in the area around Arnhem

Plans were stolen from a Glider (mentioned by Leo)

There were too many weather delays for Sosoboskies men to drop

The bridge that the 101st had to get too (cant remember the name now ) blew before they could reach it

The roads were too clogged up

The Pilots dropped their equipment to the Germans

But there was some good luck on the British side. If it hadn't been for the courageous Dutch Underground and the brave attempts by the Americans and the Canadian Engineers then most of the Brits who were stranded after the main force left over the Rhine would have either been found out, killed or captured. It would have been an even bigger catastrophe.

__________________
And when he gets to heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I have served my time in hell

That's a good list of what went wrong, Jet.
I would add to this:-

1. Major blunder by Eisenhower in postponing the airborne offensive from the beginning to the middle of September. That gave the enemy time to assemble their 1 Parachute Army under Karl Student (of Crete fame).
2. Choosing Gen. Urquhart to command Allied 1 Airborne Division. A terrible choice. Urquhart was an infantry man and he hadn't a clue how an airborne attack should be conducted. So he was a gullible target for the dodgy advice he was getting beforehand, especially from the RAF.
3. Allied communications were abysmal. Not just because of the radio failures, but the whole chain of command for Market Garden was poor.

Had Market-Garden succeeded by the occupation of the Ruhr, I do not believe the war would have ended in 44'. The Ruhr was a shambles as it was and very little value to the Reich. It was not the industrial center anymore so the lost would have had some impact but not enough to end the war in under 2 months.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Thanx Leo.

I also do not think that the war would not have been over if Market Garden was a success because the Germans would have been fully prepared and after the tanks entered the Ruhr the Germans would have been able to counter attacked and thrown the Allies back into Holland.
But why were tanks needed to get into the Ruhr, why not bomb the few industrial buildings that were there ?

__________________
And when he gets to heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I have served my time in hell

The area around the Ruhr was one of the biggest industrial areas for Germany. The largest was in Chechia. This was the most important.

Although the Germans wouldn't have lost the war when they would have lost the Ruhrgebiet, it is obviously that it would have meant a huge blow towards the production of all kind of war material.

__________________

First of all, I have a little correction here:



This man's name was Kurt Arthur Benno Student, Generaloberst. Not Karl, Leo.

And I agree with many of the thoughts expressed here. I completely agree about field marshal Walter Model being there helped a lot. The man was a genious and he could react immediately. Also, SS Gruppenführer Wilhelm Bittrich (a very experienced and intelligent commander) reacted very well to the Allied attack, so he could conduct the defense as it should be conducted. He took his few Panzers and men and took advantage of the Allies' flaws, such as bad weather (which meant that the Allied aircraft could not attack Bittrich's Panzers nor the Allied transports could bring reinforcements), an over-extended supply line and their light forces. The Polish airborne brigade was still in England and nearly two days would have to pass for them to land in Holland, just above SS veteran troops (not kids and old men as they were told).

Indeed, SS Panzer divisions 9th and 8th were recovering from combat and they were nearly 1/3 strenghtened. But let's remember that even a few Panzers and a few heavy guns can very easily overwhelm light infantry such as paratroopers are. Within these circumstances, the battle was lost beforehand. But I still believe that a much more intrepid commander would have made this such intrepid plan to work.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Originally posted by PzJgr:
Had Market-Garden succeeded by the occupation of the Ruhr, I do not believe the war would have ended in 44'. The Ruhr was a shambles as it was and very little value to the Reich. It was not the industrial center anymore so the lost would have had some impact but not enough to end the war in under 2 months.

At the time, however, it was believed by the Allies that with Ruhr taken, the road would be open to Berlin.
In an interview he gave shortly after the war, General Blumentritt offered the following view:
"He who holds northern Germany holds Germany. Such a break-through, coupled with air domination, would have torn in pieces the weak German front and ended the war. Berlin and Prague would have been occupied ahead of the Russians." [quoted in The Other Side of the Hill]
I think it's plausible that the war could have been ended in 1944 had not the Allies thrown away the 'moment of maximum opportunity'. That was around August 1944 when the bulk of the German Army in the west [as much as FOUR-FIFTHS]had been wasted or trapped in Normandy.
General Blumentritt again: 'There were no German forces behind the Rhine, at the end of August our front was wide open.'
As we know the Allies bogged themselves down in a rather pointless argument whether the next stage should be a broad front strategy or the single thrust approached favoured by Montgomery. But they were so convinced that the enemy was on the brink of collapse they didn't recognise the urgency of driving home a thrust ANYWHERE just as long as the thrust was made.
This is the postwar reflection of General Westphal, who was Blumentritt's successor as Chief of Staff on the Western Front:
"The over-all situation in the West was serious in the extreme. A heavy defeat anywhere along the front, which was so full of gaps that it did not deserve this name, might lead to a catastrophe, if the enemy were to exploit his opportunity skilfully. A particular source of danger was that not a single bridge over the Rhine had been prepared for demolition...Until the middle of October the enemy could have broken through at any point he liked with ease, and would then have been able to cross the Rhine and thrust deep into Germany almost unhindered." [quoted in The German Army in the West]

Originally posted by General der Infanterie Friedrich H:
First of all, I have a little correction here:

This man's name was Kurt Arthur Benno Student, Generaloberst. Not Karl, Leo.

Indeed, SS Panzer divisions 9th and 8th were recovering from combat and they were nearly 1/3 strenghtened. But let's remember that even a few Panzers and a few heavy guns can very easily overwhelm light infantry such as paratroopers are. Within these circumstances, the battle was lost beforehand. But I still believe that a much more intrepid commander would have made this such intrepid plan to work.

Totally agree. Though I remarked on these SS Panzer Divisions being at one-third strength I certainly wouldn't deny they were still too formidable for lightly equipped airborne troops.

I think Eisenhower never knew very good what he wanted himself. Or a one-front attack are to attack on the whole front.

If the British and the Polish para's would have been dropped on better places, then it might have worked.

But still the good Waffen-SS divisions would have been very difficult to overcome.

__________________

Erwin--Ike bent to Montys wish. Patton should have been given those resources for an attack as his attack had a better chance at succeeding but, Ike was playing the "Political game" and gave in to Montys wishes--so Patton did without certain supplies while Monty had all he needed--except for clear weather and good luck and more roads and more transports and gliders.

I agree with you, if the British and Polish Paras had been dropped in a much better place--the outcome might have been drastically different. Monty wanted them dropped on or as near to Arnhem as possible. Now Monty cannot be blamed for the fact that TWO SS Panzer Divisions happened to be resting there.

Monty CAN be blamed for not having better planning. For instance--the British Paras problem with not having the correct Chrystals for their radios. Also, choosing that route with only one road was more or less suicidal and not so brilliant. Monty pretty much bet everything being a success he had on that one road--and he didnt have a plan "B" "C" etc--just in case things didnt go their way.

What Ike can be blamed for--is the fact that he OK'ed the operation to begin with--mostly though because he was trying to appease Monty.

The Germans can also be blamed because they had the two SS Panzer Divisions in Arnhem to begin with. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 22. April 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Absolutely agree

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!