Talk:Operation Market Garden

Additional potentially useful information for the article

Casualties

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

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

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

Corp HQ: 4 killed and 8 missing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome

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

That is one view. If they had held Arnhem for longer using more forces it would have been a 100% success, despite the largely undefended Waal bridge not being captured on day one. Could have, don't know as it never happened. But what is clear is that if the US 82nd had captured the easy to take Waal bridge, XXX Corps would have reached Arnhem relieving the paras on the bridge. They were halted at Waal bridge at Nijmegen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.177.14 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Debate on the outcome?

This battle has been cpnsidered a failure by every historain... axis victory..100% 100.38.247.36 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed over and over and over again.

There are only three possible outcomes allowed in an infobox: '[one side or the other] Victory' and 'See Debate'

There is clearly a debate about the outcome of the battle, as shown by the 'Debate' section of the article, so the only possible entry in the infobox is 'See debate'. Shimbo (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure which historians you think make up “every”, because a majority understand how military operations work and that a 50km salient pushing into your lines and not repulsed is most definitely not a victory.

Did the Germans prevent the operation from achieving 100% of its sims? Yes.

Did they win the battle? Most definitely not, having lost Eindhoven, Grave, Nijmegen and very significant numbers of troops and equipment, including almost the entire complement of the Armour School and dozens of other armoured vehicles. Enderwigginau (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am genuinely astonished at a number of the comments above. The Allies initiated the battle. They had clear objectives that included the necessary permanent capture of the Arnhem bridge. They used overwhelming land and air forces to achieve their objectives. They failed because the German forces reacted very quickly to the Para drop at Arnhem and the ground advance of the Allied XXX Corps. This means that the outcome of the battle was a defeat for the Allied forces. There is no alternative. To see this in any other way casts doubt on the reputation of Wikipedia objectivity. 2A00:23C8:619B:8001:554D:E291:46AF:6C04 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your, my or anyone else's personal opinion is. What matters is what reliable sources say. In this case, those sources differ — some say it was a German Victory, some don't. The only way to show that in a neutral way is to say "result: see debate" and then explain what the different sources say in that section. Shimbo (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Montgomery said the operation was under resourced. True with only one corps above Eindhoven. The operation was a success in splitting German armies ramming a 60 mile salient up to the Rhine. The failure point was to establish a bridgehead over the Rhine. That was due to the US 82nd failing to seize the Waal bridge at Nijmegen on day one.

XXX Corps reached Nijmegen on schedule, then had to seize the bridge themselves delaying the advance by 48 hours. In the first two days German resistance was minimal as XXX Corps raced 60 miles to Nijmegen. The time window gifted to the Germans because of the delay at Nijmegen meant they could draw in armour from Germany overpowering the British paras at Arnhem bridge. If the US 82nd succeeded in seizing the lightly defended bridge XXX Corps would have relieved the troops at Arnhem. 143.58.176.185 (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The result of the operation

Currently, the result is given as

See debate on outcome

This is equivalent to saying "inconclusive" with more words, and gives the impression that we are being defensive, i.e. we have something to hide. From an editorial standpoint, it is better to just say "inconclusive". Nxavar (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Because all of the objectives of an operation were not achieved does not mean an operation is a failure. Not one mm of ground taken by XXX Corps was taken back by the Germans. That is not failure. In fact the salient was fleshed out. Allied troops were perfectly positioned in the salient for the next advance. Vital bridges were seized and even the important Philips radio factory denying the Germans of vital radios. V2 rocket sites were overrun.

This has been discussed many times before and the consensus was 'see debate' was appropriate.

The thing is the result wasn't 'inconclusive'. It's that sources disagree whether it was a German victory, an Allied failure or an Allied partial success (the second two not being allowed in the infobox).

It's not possible for us to come to a hard conclusion like 'German victory' because the sources differ. All we can do is record what the sources say, which we do in the 'debate on outcome' section.

Also, the infobox is not supposed to contain controversial information. Clearly, given the regularity with which this issue is raised, the result of the battle is controversial. That's why we just point at the 'debate on outcome' section in the infobox. Shimbo (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Allied failure is German victory and, likewise, German victory is Allied failure. The two terms differ only in their connotations. The consensus for this article is that the choice of "Victory" or "Failure" in the sources is bias? Nxavar (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Please can you read the previous discussions in the talk page archive (for example: here, here, and here as this has been discussed multiple times already and as far as I can see you're not adding anything new. Shimbo (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe the general reader would make the same assumptions as you did, Nxavar. There is a link to "debate on outcome" in the infobox to the section, but you consider that to be giving the impression we/Wikipedia has something to hide (?). There are differing opinions on the outcome, stating it's "inconclusive" is incorrect, because reliable sources differ on the matter. So from an encyclopedic standpoint, it's worse to say "inconclusive". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The emperor has no clothes. The reliable sources differ on whether it is better to call it something like "German Victory" or something like "Allied Failure" which are equivalent outcomes. On English Wikipedia in particular this is enough disagreement to warrant a "See debate on outcome" note. Nxavar (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Judging from the month-long silence, what is really missing here is sourcing the claim that the debate is not about the result but on where it should be attributed to. Nxavar (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're try to say. Can you explain further? Shimbo (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I'm trying to say, it seems. I need to check with the sources for direct statements for what the debate is about. Nxavar (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you do a comprehensive search of all reliable sources that comment on the result of the operation and add any that are missing to the article that would be very helpful. The 'Debate on Outcome' section could do with some improvements IMO. Shimbo (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Victory conditions

infobox should show failed operation. While there is some debate over the general effect, all the secondary sources in the article all agree that it failed to achieve its objectives. I am concerned that somehow spinning this into a "murky success" is bias. Lots of conflicts have side effects that might be positive, but the article should look at the core objectives of the operation...and the body text of the article basically agrees it failed to get those.

The operation failed to achieve its objectives, and certainly, is generally known as a failure. Even the name of the movie "A bridge too far" refers to the fact it was a failed operation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to only have three options 'Victory', 'Defeat' or 'See debate'. The fact that people have been arguing about how much of a success/failure Market Garden was ever since the operation ended means the only option is 'see debate', which is what the infobox already says.

That doesn't mean we can't add to the debate section though. If you've got something to add to it and it's based on reliable sources then great, go ahead and add it. Shimbo (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

40 Division thrust

This article reads as if Market Garden was some sort of Montgomery's 40 Division Thrust proposal. And that it would end the war by Xmas '44. It was no such thing. It was a part of Eisenhower's broad front strategy. Its prime aim was to consolidate forces around Arnhem for a pincer on the Ruhr. If the Germans had capitulated then run some forces up to the Zuider Zee. A small operation with one corps of the Second Army above Eindhoven aided by paratroopers of the First Allied Airborne Army, who planned the operation. All references to the 40 division thrust need removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.246.193 (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)