Operation Market Garden was a success

[ljadw]

The claim that the failure of MG caused famine in a part of the Netherlands is founded on the assumption that there was in the netherlans in september 1944 sufficient food that could not be transported because of the railway strike that was caused by MG .


There is no proof for this assumption, which is very unlikely .:sufficient food in wartime ?

[Attrition]

Silly Bernie?

[Mori]

Montgomery did write that MG was a "90% success": it's in Normandy to the Baltic. But in his later Memoirs, Montgomery frankly admits he made mistakes. "I was wrong", he plainly says (p. 266).

I invite forum members to find any other example of a senior military leader who so plainly recognizes he made a mistake, and not a mundane one. I don't believe there is any such thing in the writings of Eisenhower, Tedder, Bradley, Patton, Truscott, de Lattre etc. But happy to be proven wrong.

[Michael Kenny]

I don't believe there is any such thing in the writings of Eisenhower, Tedder, Bradley, Patton, Truscott, de Lattre etc. But happy to be proven wrong.

I believe Bradley made such an admission (over Cherbourg or Brest?) where he used words to the effect that too many US soldiers died to preserve the illusion of 'never being defeated'

[Mori]

The claim that the failure of MG caused famine in a part of the Netherlands is founded on the assumption that there was in the netherlans in september 1944 sufficient food that could not be transported because of the railway strike that was caused by MG .

This is missing the point, I believe.

Responsibilitty for the famine lies with the Germans, not with the British. The German decision to starve the Dutch population cannot be attributed to the British as if "Germans had no choice". The Germans had full freedom to adopt another policy than famine.

[Sheldrake]

The claim that the failure of MG caused famine in a part of the Netherlands is founded on the assumption that there was in the netherlans in september 1944 sufficient food that could not be transported because of the railway strike that was caused by MG .

This is missing the point, I believe.

Responsibilitty for the famine lies with the Germans, not with the British. The German decision to starve the Dutch population cannot be attributed to the British as if "Germans had no choice". The Germans had full freedom to adopt another policy than famine.

IIRC the German decision to starve the Western Netherlands was collective punishment for the strike by the Dutch railway, called to aid the allied Liberation. The strike might not have been called if Op Market Garden had not been launched, but it was the Germans who chose to starve the Dutch.

[Kingfish]

I invite forum members to find any other example of a senior military leader who so plainly recognizes he made a mistake, and not a mundane one. I don't believe there is any such thing in the writings of Eisenhower, Tedder, Bradley, Patton, Truscott, de Lattre etc. But happy to be proven wrong.

IIRC, Guy Simonds admitted he made a mistake in sacking Brigadier Cunningham and keeping General Keller (Can 3rd I.D.) following the Op Spring debacle. Gen Kitching (Can 4th A.D.) also regretted not sacking Brig Booth after finding him drunk and asleep inside his command tank.

To be fair I believe both made these confessions to colleagues / friends rather than in post-war memoirs.

[Aber]

I invite forum members to find any other example of a senior military leader who so plainly recognizes he made a mistake, and not a mundane one. I don't believe there is any such thing in the writings of Eisenhower, Tedder, Bradley, Patton, Truscott, de Lattre etc. But happy to be proven wrong.

Eisenhower went with (roughly) - dispositions before the Battle of the Bulge were a calculated risk.

Not sure that really counts as an admitting a mistake.

[ljadw]

The claim that the failure of MG caused famine in a part of the Netherlands is founded on the assumption that there was in the netherlans in september 1944 sufficient food that could not be transported because of the railway strike that was caused by MG .

This is missing the point, I believe.

Responsibilitty for the famine lies with the Germans, not with the British. The German decision to starve the Dutch population cannot be attributed to the British as if "Germans had no choice". The Germans had full freedom to adopt another policy than famine.

No : the point is that without MG there also would have been starvation in the Netherlands, as,even before MG,the food situation was worsening alarmingly .

NO MG = starvation

Failure of MG = starvation

Successful MG (= liberation of the Netherlands) = no starvation .

[ljadw]

The German decision to starve the Dutch population cannot be attributed to the British as if "Germans had no choice".

The German embargo was limited to the Western parts of the Netherlands where were living half of the population .And the embargo stopped on 8 november .

[Mori]

This is missing the point, I believe.

Responsibility for the famine lies with the Germans, not with the British. The German decision to starve the Dutch population cannot be attributed to the British as if "Germans had no choice". The Germans had full freedom to adopt another policy than famine.

No : the point is that without MG there also would have been starvation in the Netherlands, as,even before MG,the food situation was worsening alarmingly .

NO MG = starvation

Failure of MG = starvation

Successful MG (= liberation of the Netherlands) = no starvation .

You are making the counterfactual wrong:

1) You have no reason to limit the root cause of Dutch starvation to MG. You could also say "no D-Day in Normandy, no starvation". Or "no World War 2, no starvation".

2) Hence, the only way to get the reasoning right is to limit it to the last decision maker. In this case: the German authorities. They were the last with the ability to trigger or not the starvation.

Skipping this ability to decide and assuming the German acts were an obligation (as if a mere consequence of the laws of physics) is flawed logic. Or it's a heavily biaised agenda - namely, that Germans had no responsibility in the starvation, like their acts were utterly predictable and the British/Allies should have known upfront.

[Mori]

The German decision to starve the Dutch population cannot be attributed to the British as if "Germans had no choice".

The German embargo was limited to the Western parts of the Netherlands where were living half of the population .And the embargo stopped on 8 november .

Well, the peak of the starvation was April 1945...

Someone must have forgotten to tell the German occupation forces that the embargo had been lifted.

[ljadw]

The pick of starvation was april 1945,although the embargo was lifted in november 1944 ;this means that the influence of the embargo on the food situation in the western part of the Netherlands is not proved and is mostly a myth . 22000 Dutch (0.5 % of the population in the provinces north-and South Holland ) died from starvation and cold . There is no proof that without the embargo, they would not have died .



The whole theory about the influence of the embargo is founded on the not-proved claim that on 17 september 1944 a lot of food was waiting to be transported to the Western part of the Netherlands,that it could not be transported because of the embargo ,and that when the embargo was lifted, the food had disappeared mysteriously,causing a few months later 22000 dead .

[ljadw]

The German decision to starve the Dutch population cannot be attributed to the British as if "Germans had no choice".

In this case: the German authorities. They were the last with the ability to trigger or not the starvation.

[/quote]


1) I expect a proof (written order from Seys-Inquart) that the Germans decided to starve the Dutch

2) How could the Germans trigger or not the starvation ?

[Mori]

1) I expect a proof (written order from Seys-Inquart) that the Germans decided to starve the Dutch

Strange question. In a minute, you will say that if criminals did not make a written statement to take responsibility of their crimes, it means they did not do it.

A revisionist agenda, maybe?