Talk:Battle of Arnhem

Merger

In reply to Dabbler's proposal to merge this article with the Market Garden one. The Operation Market Garden article is far too large as it is and when editing the page it suggests splitting it. However at the moment both articles (MG and this one) are overlapping each other. Am not to sure how they can co-exist at the present with the way the main article is laid out without overlapping or making the Market Garden article void of 1st Airborne content and making it XXX Corps and American centric.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think this deserves its own article - as a nine day battle, the subject of numerous books (Arnhem specific, not all of Market Garden), and something that already had a load of links to it (when it was a redirect page) before I added a few more, it seems worthy. Also we wouldn't expect to remove this page, depsite it being part of one of the 3 pages dealing with Operation Overlord (Normandy Landings and Invasion of Normandy being the other two related articles). Perhaps we could use this as a kind of template, and work on reducing the British Airborne information in the MG article so that the facts are there, but with less detail. The MG article could definitely use the space! Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see am sitting the fence here, as noted above i agree it probably does deserve its own page however with so much overlapping going on and the way the main article is structured (i.e. split into days) there would have to be links in each section redirecting to this article and the main article would then be essentially talking about everyone else and missing this portion of it all out, would it not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of discussion that I wanted to raise, because I, too, feel that there is a lot of overlap and the two parts of the operation are intimately linked but I can see that we can get into a lot more detail in a separate article covering only one aspect. Of course someone could always start another article on the land assault ;-). Dabbler (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of information not included in the MG article that could be included here, and each element of the battle can get more detail included in it. Examples might include Urquharts enforced absence in a Dutch loft, or more detail on the Dorsetshires crossing attempts. I wouldn't have thought a link on every day would be necessary - just an explained link at the top of the Battle section, and a little (emphasise a little, MG shouldn't be stripped bare of the Arnhem battle) thinning out of the main 1st Airborne elements. It shouldn't be neccesary to seperate Arnhem and Oosterbeck on the MG page for example. It isn't done for any of the American sectors and it is a little precise for such a large article. Detail of that sort goes on this page. Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Walter Model.jpg

The image Image:Walter Model.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The image has been removed to resolve this issue. Didn't know about this, so a lesson learnt! Psychostevouk (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish Brigade

The Polish Brigade was dropped south of the river and only crossed in small numbers so can they really be counted as part of the battle of Arnhem ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course they took part in the battle! Polish contribution was neglected for 60 years. I think it would be very wrong to do it again.--Jacurek (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

While they were part of Operation Market Garden how can any claim be made to be part of the battle of Arnhem. If they were can you cite a source. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure how to answer this... a whole Brigade dropped over the course of the operation. They were under Urquhart's command and were part of his plan for the whole Arnhem operation. As the lead states, the Battle of Arnhem covers Arnhem, Oosterbeek, Wolheze and Driel. Every book dealing with the battle of Arnhem conforms to this description. I don't think I've ever seen a source that doesn't... Ranger Steve (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Some points

• The info box does not match the text, how was 1st Airborne reinforced and the German side has 1 panzer and 1 infantry div while in the lead it mentions two panzer divisions.

• Commanders. John Frost is mentioned as a battalion commander but no mention of the brigade commanders apart from Sosabowski. I would leave the commander as Urquhart and remove the others, if you want to add more then you would need to add all the brigade and battalion commanders in its present form.

• Dutch Waffen SS they were part of the German forces not a separate country fighting. as for example the 1st Independent Parachute Brigade.

• Use convert formula to convert miles into Km as well. example {{convert|8|mi}} gives 8 miles (13 km) ther is also a mixture of miles and kilometres I would pick one and stick with it.

• In the details of what the battalions were tasked with you have the ranks added for Fitch & Dobie but not Frost.

• A lot more in line citations are required.

This is the start of a good article, more citations would bring it up to B class. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I've started addressing some of your points in the article. Some I'll discuss a bit more here.

• Frost. Template:Infobox Military Conflict doesn't state a need to list an entire chain of command in order to include lower ranks, but does give you the allowance to include other officers as neccesary. In the discussion this is expanded on too, (to include the most prominent or influential in the conflict). This is the battle for which Frost is most famous and his defence of the bridge is one of the most important aspects of the battle. They named the bridge after him!
• Dutch SS - This is discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Do you have any further thoughts?

Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

As per the request for feedback; I don’t have the time just right not to go through the entire article but I have gone from the start to the end of the German forces section. The following I feel need addressing:

1. The lead at the moment is good but needs to be expanded to several paragraphs to meet the requirements of the MOS.
2. The lead suggests that the both the 9th and 10th SS were there in full strength, i feel that the word "elements", or something to that effect, should probably be used unless incorrect.
3. A little nitpick: "Approx 1,300+ killed", what does approximately 1,300 + mean – the plus sign seems to throw out the word ‘approximately’ to me.
4. Need to deal with the tags within the article.
5. Need to replace the – between dates etc with the –
6. I agree with the above, more citations are needed throughout the article.
7. If you have the programme, and the ability, the maps need to be converted to .svg files – am sure that’s the extension. There’s a few editors around who will be able to help you out if you can’t do it – like me, I tried and failed, lol.
8. ”This information would have been gleaned from ULTRA intercepts that the Allied Airborne Army was not privy to and therefore could not act upon themselves[8]” While a cited sentence this reads like speculation to me, can it be reworded slightly?
9. Remove the dead (red) links.
10. Need to address the “Template:How” in the German section, also if you can elaborate on how the II SS Panzer Corps was trained in anti-air operations; from my exp they were regular panzer divisions who had there baptism of fire on the Eastern Front defending against Soviet mobile operations before being moved to launch a strategic counterstroke in Normandy (one that was never launched due to Operation Epsom.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Enigma, I've started working on it, will work on the lead later. To answer your points:

1. Tomorrow!
2. Good catch.
3. I agree (I didn't add it). I think the ref to more detail in the losses section covers it.
4. Done.
5. I've never got this - do I need to actually type the letters & n dash? Is there a reason for it? Will do it tomorrow if I can find them all!

   For it to work you need to type it exactlly like so, with the symbols around it: – . As for a reason, its a manual of style thing.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

6. More than the ones already added? Ive seen a few others and done them too.
7. As you've guessed, don't have the program. Am working on it!

   You may want to co-operate with user:Jappalang or user:EyeSerene. The former converted a map i made into .Svg and the latter has made several .png maps. I believe both are fine for FAC unlike Jpegs.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

8. Good call.
9. Red links are encouraged in this context at Wikipedia:Red link. I plan to do some of them soon (maybe a few units can go). They're not dead - just not born yet!

   No problems then.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

10. Expanded it a little. According to Kershaw, 9th and 10th were apparently raised specifically in the expectation of a western front, and spent 15 months learning how to counter airborne attacks.

Cheers! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have finished reading through the article, very good stuff in my opinion.

1. Attempts made to take the southern end were unsuccessful,[50] but the 10th SS Reconnaissance Battalion was quickly repulsed when it arrived.[51] - seems a bit clumsy to me, can it be reworded?
2. “In a controversial meeting in which Sosabowski was politically outmanoeuvred” Could this be elaborated on, why was it controversial and why was he politically outmanoeuvred?
3. No mention of tank attacks until Day 9, is this correct? If not I think it is very notable to mention the presence of armoured units in the preceding days.
4. “Despite Montgomery's assertion that the operation was "Ninety percent successful", the Allies now controlled a long salient that led nowhere” – there are some alternative points of view provided on the Market-Garden talk page, I would suggest attempting to word them in as well, at least one counters this position.
5. “The 1st Airborne had held out north of the Rhine for nine days instead of two, which led to Brigadier General James Gavin of the US 82nd Airborne Division to comment that "there was no failure at Arnhem".[173]” If a reference can be found, I believe Gavin also commented something to the effect that Frosts defence of the bridge was the best battalion action of the war (or something like that).
6. From the infobox, “1 reinforced airborne division” – just out of interest but how was the division reinforced?
7. ”The battle exacted a heavy toll on the 1st Airborne Division, who would never see action again.” Perhaps this should be worded to note that the division, or elements at least, saw no further combat operations but oversaw the surrender or units at the end of the war?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my late reply. Was away for a while. Nice expansion of the aftermath section, even if it did mean I almost deleted all of the expansion I was doing simultaneously! Nice ref for the Battle honours too. Does that book cover all battle honours from WWII? Other points:

1. Good call. I wanna rewrite a bit of that to better explain Kussins death and how it left the bridge undefended too.
2. This was the meeting that sowed the seeds for scapegoating Sosabowski after MG. I'll exapnd it soon - and the aftermath section to deal with Sosabowski's rep since.
3. True. Lots of tanks from day 1. Will exapand the earlier pages. It was tiger tanks that only arrived on day 9.
4. You've done this. I wanna be as careful as possible to separate the result of this battle from its effect on MG, although they are of course related.
5. Didn't know about that comment. I've expanded that section now, but if it can be found it'll fit into various parts of the article.
6. The Glider Pilot Regiment weren't part of the division, they were attached. In total their numbers added more than 2 battalions, (they were trained infantry too). I've expanded the forces section.
7. Done.

Cheers for the help Ranger Steve (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! The book does cover all battle honours awarded during the Second World War however it appears its the only one for the 1st Airborne; there is however a bunch more for the various parts of Market Garden - i will add them to that article at some stage.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

More points

Other issues:

• I'd thought about including the MG Order of Battle originally, but I was wary of linking to an OOb with lots of uninvolved units. I'd tentaively started one of my own for the battle, but I was torn between including too much detail in the article, and semi duplicating an existing OOB in a new page! Anyway, here it is (still work in progress). Any thoughts would be welcome. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  Looks like a good start, i don't see why there cant be a dedicated OOB page just for this battle. Although i havent really tidied them up yet there is one for the main article: Operation Perch and a more detailed and specific one for Battle of Villers-Bocage. No one has raised that as an issue. If you could though, add the German side of things ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible edits

I have several questions to ask you all. One. I deleted the red link for Groesbeek Heights because I figured it wasn't going to be notable enough for an article. Maybe an article could be written, but would it have any actual content besides "This was an important place during the battle of Arnhem?" Should the heights be described in THIS article instead if this is all that is notable about them? Secondly, should the sentence at the start of Aftermath be removed? It seems redundant, seeing as the top infobox describes the battle as a German victory. I would do so, but a reference would be removed and I don't know if it would otherwise be any use. Squid661 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call on the Groesbeek link. I'd probably have linked to it myself if I'd known the page existed. As for the Heights, I don't know enough about them to know if they would warrant an article beyond the Groesbeek one. However, if there was any interesting history/geological info it most certainly shouldn't be here seeing as 1) It's a geographical feature, not a conflict and 2) They're some miles away from Arnhem and weren't part of this battle. As for the first sentance of aftermath, I see no reason to remove it. Yes, the result is in the Infobox, but it's nice to have a ref for the result and this is it. The aftermath section seems the best place to put it. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

About the edit before my own possibly misguided edit. There is a possible clarification to the Lonsdale Force sentence: What size formation in specific was it? Battalion? Regiment? Brigade? Even maybe a division? The scale of "large" is vague. If I'm looking at the Battle of Kursk, for example, a "large" formation is probably one of the larger German field armies or a Soviet front. Lesser standards of "large" in those circumstances may perhaps correspond to a corps or division. Here, I know the overwhelming probability is that this force is much, much smaller. So what size is it, in specific? Squid661 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your edit was slightly incorrect - Lonsdale Force was a name, and so the 'the' is unnecessary. As for the size, I've noticed I actually put some of the stuff in the wrong day. I'd hope the size should be clear enough from the previous events but if not, the link to Richard Lonsdale explains it further. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Catastrophic defeat

Is the defeat actually described as "catastrophic" in Kershaw? I was trying to find the direct quote but couldn't see it. Dabbler (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad - definitely doesn't have the word catastrophic on that page! I think the page I actually meant was p301, not p310. Even there it isn't catastrophic, although I'm sure I've read that... certainly it was pretty dire for the British. Anyway, changed it to a reference-able "major defeat" now. Sorry 'bout that, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that 'major' again. How about operational defeat and tactical success? A 60-mile advance into prepared defences isn't to be sneezed at whatever the hopes for the gig at the start.Keith-264 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is discussing just the Battle of Arnhem, not the whole of Operation Market Garden so the successes of the other units involved are only of importance where they impact on the fighting at Arnhem. The Allied defeat at Arnhem, with all the personnel and equipment losses and the failure to achieve any of the objectives, were pretty major, even if, as Monty said, the whole operation was 90% successful. Dabbler (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... but that's for Operation Market Garden. Whatever result that was, it doesn't necessarily affect the outcome of the British v German battle at Arnhem. XXX Corps don't feature in the combatants because they weren't part of the battle, and so their advance shouldn't feature in the result. Arnhem is widely regarded as a German victory and the last major defeat of the British Army in wartime - irrespective of the whole MG gig, (that's what 'major' reflects here). Ranger Steve (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

XXX Corps artillery and 43rd Division were involved at Arnhem. If you have to use 'major' to mean 'big' then a 'major' defeat is Normandy/Dunkirk/Philippines/Moscow; the effect of the fighting at Arnhem is barely Lance Corporal. [;0). Oh and impact isn't a verb.Keith-264 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate to disagree but.... Impact (Verb) Ranger Steve (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Conjugate with the verb 'to be'[;o)Keith-264 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, from A Bridge Too Far: "The stand of the 1st Airborne... was also a major defeat: Britian's second Dunkirk." Ranger Steve (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, apart from Norway and Greece-Crete; oh and the Aegean campaign 1943. If tactics are the doings of military forces up to division then Arnhem would be a tactical defeat, the failure of M-G to go off as hoped would be an operational one.Keith-264 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol, okay we'll call it the fifth Dunkirk (although Norway might be considered Dunkirk -1). Look, I agree with all you're saying, but I think it belongs better on the MG page. It's very difficult to separate the two - they are obviously intertwined and one is a small part of the other. But going by the sources I have, they all call the individual battle a German victory and/or a British defeat - usually a major one. Its affect on MG (and MG's affect on it) is obviously important and reflected in the aftermath section, but I wouldn't have said it affected the result of the battle which is pretty neatly summarised by the losses sustained by the 1st Airborne and their failure to take any of the land they arrived on. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In a spirit of compromise I'll settle for a Captain defeat but I can't go higher than that (fnar, fnar!). Clearly the defeat at Arnhem had ramifications so there was a tactical defeat there which contributed to the failure of the operation but then again is it worth trying to separate it from the delays at Nijmegen or the hopeless bungling of Brereton and Tedder?Keith-264 (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a tricky one - especially as a lot of people view it the other way round - that the failure of the operation had ramifications on the battle (failure) at Arnhem! Ranger Steve (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the attempt on the Nijmegen bridges was foiled by troops who crossed the Arnhem bridge, the air Barons' refusal of coup de mains and of a second drop on the first day look like rather big unforced errors caused by parochialism. It also appears that XXX Corps' first day attack was intended to be against much more than a 'crust' and that it reflected a greater German defensive capacity than some post-war accounts admit so that far from being slow it reflected the needs of a greater task which was accomplished. Roger Cirillo in 'The MARKET GARDEN Campaign: Allied Operational Command in Northwest Europe, 1944' (PhD thesis) has some interesting things to say about it.Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But the troops who fought the Americans at Nijmegen from the 17-21st didn't cross the Arnhem bridge (except perhaps some small elements). 2nd Battalion kept the bridge closed until after the Americans captured Nijmegen, forcing 10th SS to use ferries and the like. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A motorised force used the bridge in the morning.Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The 9th SS reconnaissance battalion crossed the bridge (heading south) on the afternoon of the 17th, the only significant force to do so. They returned from Nijmgen on the morning of the 18 and were obliterated as they tried to cross back to the north. Is that who you're thinking of? No more German vehicles crossed the bridge in any strength until the 21st and by then Nijmegen was captured. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Combatants

I've removed the Canadian and Dutch SS combatants from the infobox. Although I lobbied for their inclusion at Talk Military History this article seems to stick out like a sore thumb now. I personally think nationality should override allegiance in these instances, but I realise that in the great scheme of things, the actions of the men were ideologically one way or the other. Still I'd be surprised and delighted if anyone disagreed and wanted to reinstate them! Ranger Steve (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Arnhem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Not reviewed yet - working on it DB 103245 ^talk 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Fixed a couple of minor issues but on the whole, well written

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   seems to cover everything

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images tagged as free to use

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All looks fine to me - well done!

Moved from page for safekeeping

Comemoration

The Battle of Arnhem has been commemorated regularly over the years, with representation from many of the countries involved attending both annual memorial and occaisonal re-enactment events.

The Fiftieth Aniversary of 1994 was attended by veterans and enthusiasts alike. Fifteen RAF Hercules Transport Aircraft re-enacted an airbourne landing on the heathland North-west of Arnhem by dropping troops in five waves, despite marginal conditions of low cloud and sporadic gusts.

Similarly the XXX Corps advance was recreated (in a single day) by members of the Nederlands 'Keep them Rolling' Vehicle conservation group, supported by members of the British Military Vehicle Trust and the North East Military Vehicle Club. (Two dedicated British enthusiasts are alledged to have arrived at Arnhem in period battledress- without insignia -having ridden period military bicycles across Holland in order to attend).

It is unlikley that events of similar scale will occour again, simply because of their sheer complexity and expense.

Ranger Steve (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No 2 (Dutch) Troop 10 (Inter Allied) Commando

The info box does not mention Holland. Men from No 2 (Dutch) Troop 10 (Inter Allied) Commando parachuted in with 1AB Div and there must have been some resistance fighters involved. This is not a criticism just wondering how large the contribution has to be to warrant an entry. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have my sources with me at the mo Jim, but I'll check later. From the top of my head though, there was only a small Dutch contingent dropped - 10 to 20 men or so. The resistance is something I've deliberately left out; one of the major criticisms of the British was their failure to exploit or make any use of the Dutch resistance. This was caused by a lack of trust in the Dutch underground after the England Game. The resistance thus took no part in the battle, save for a few individual civilian actions (such as Kate ter Horst). Ranger Steve (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an incredible error in stating "the resistance thus took no part in the battle" ! You do know they took part in the battle so you really should have done some research before answering instead of making a definitive statement as if you had awareness of the Dutch Resistance activities in the battle. This reminds me of how for 150 years after the Battle of Waterloo, the typical British historian would deliberately omit the role of the non-British military units in the battle; ie, 65% of Wellington's army on that decisive day.The British command's actions against the Dutch Resistance should be noted, because their paranoid zeal was opposite to the American airborne's close work with the Dutch Resistance in the campaign. The British officials ordered their Airborne soldiers to actively destroy communication wires used by the Resistance; while the Dutch Fighters were attempting to use these secure lines of communications to help the British with intel about German unit movements in the Arnhem Oosterbeek area. Here are the words of James Sims from his account ( as a soldier of the 2nd Parachute Battalion ) present in the battle and captured after it. This excerpt is from the book "Arnhem Spearhead" , Chapter 6 while he and other captured Paras are being marched into captivity after the battle;

_{"We turned into a cul-de-sac where the fit and the wounded were separated, wounded on the right, unwounded on the left. The Germans came along our line and pulled out a young Dutchman who was with us. He was a member of the Resistance and had fought right through with the British, getting both arms badly wounded when he tried to pick up a phosphorous bomb which had landed in our positions. He was forced to his knees and shot through the back of the neck. The lifeless body slumped to the ground, the heavily bandaged hands sprawled out in front like two grotesque paddles."} Joey123xz (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Axis losses

Just a trivial question: Why is it listed as Axis losses in the Cas' section? Did other German allied nations take part? Dapi89 (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At a wild guess that may be because of the Dutch SS Wach Battalions involvement. I know Holland was not part of the Axis but the only other option would be foreign volunteers. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim's hit the nail on the head. Hangover from when the Dutch SS were also in the infobox. I still think its more appropriate to have Axis there though. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadians

Important contribution of Royal Canadian Engineers mentioned in article. I motion Canadian flag goes in belligerent list. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you find the comment above about the Dutch and Canadian contributions you'll see that their flag was here once, but generally speaking their contribution wasn't enough to be listed as one of the major belligerents. Its a common misconception that the RCE alone evacuated the paras - in fact there were several British RE detachments involved as well, so that also dilutes the Canadian contribution somewhat. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tks for pointing that out. I'd argue WP doesn't have a numerical threshold for inclusion of belligerents. The Canadians may have made a relatively small contribution, agreed, but it was a contribution nonetheless. I'd compromise with an NB next to the Can flag, saying 'Royal Canadian Engineers only, as part of evacuation' or some such, if you want that kind of qualification. As to the Dutch SS, technically they weren't independent of the German armed forces, unlike the Canadians who technically had their own Chief of Staff etc, and for that reason alone the presence of Dutch SS should not prompt a Dutch flag. I'd sympathise with arguments that the Dutch partisans merit an inclusion of the Dutch flag on the Allied side, unless it really is true that they contributed nothing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there does need to be some sort of threshold though, or every nationality of everyone involved could end up being listed. There was a small Dutch troop involved in the battle, but their contribution was again pretty minor. I wouldn't have said that the Canadians contribution is significant enough to be listed in the infobox as it would suggest that their role was greater than it actually was (and I don't think that the infobox is the place for NBs or qualifiers). A far more relevant place to include the Canadians in the infobox is at Operation Berlin (Arnhem), where they did have a fairly major role in the article's subject. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the only trouble is that a threshold for inclusion of flags in infoboxes comes down to personal opinion verging on WP:OR. And yet, we have to decide among ourselves as per WP:CONSENSUS. Interesting comparison for this is WP:Battle of Britain. Note there is no Polish flag there, because the celebrated Polish pilots were technically in the RAF rather than part of the Polish forces. But there is a Canadian flag, because of the Royal Canadian Air Force took part as an independent institution, even though its contribution might have been smaller than that of the Poles. There's also an Italian flag on the Axis side, though the Italian involvement was minuscule. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One other thing the Canadians were involved in that is not played up for some reason, is the first successful Allied crossing of the Rhine was during the battle at Oosterbeek when 30 Corps was ferrying reinforcements of infantry into that area ( following the loss of Arnhem Bridge ) . It was a night-time river assault under heavy fire. Several companies of British infantry were taken across the river into OosterbeekJoey123xz (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC).

Suggestion for Browning

It would be best to introduce the names of relevant players in their entirety. For instance the article suddenly mentions a "Browning" without even referencing who it's talking about; in this case Frederick Browning. HolyB144 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good point - I'll make a temp fix. I keep meaning to rewrite the opening section of the background to incorporate more on this, but time always eludes me! Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Useful Polish map

See File:Arnhem 1.png. Let me know if anybody would be interested in editing it, I can help with the translation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Poles as scapegoats?

"The Poles withdrew to Nijmegen where they helped defend the airborne corridor before returning to England in early October.[194] Shortly afterward, the British began the process of making Sosabowski and the Polish Brigade a scapegoat for the failure at Arnhem, perhaps to cover their own failings.[195] On 17 October, Montgomery informed Alan Brooke—Chief of the Imperial General Staff—that he felt the Polish forces had "fought very badly" and that he did not want them under his command.[191] A month later, Browning wrote a long and highly critical letter of Sosabowski for Brooke's deputy.[196][197] In it, he accused Sosabowski of being difficult, unadaptable, argumentative and "loth to play his full part in the operation unless everything was done for him and his brigade".[197] Browning recommended that Sosabowski be replaced and in December the Polish government in exile duly dismissed him in a move likely made under British pressure.[195][198] Although it may be fair to say that Sosabowski was difficult to work with,[195] his scapegoating is judged as disgraceful by many historical commentators.[198] Brian Urquhart—who had done so much to warn his superiors about the dangers of Arnhem and later became Undersecretary-General of the United Nations—described the British general's actions as "grotesque and shameful"[199]"

The above does not describe how the Poles were made "scapegoat[s]for the failure at Arnhem". In what context did Monty write the letter in October, what did he refer to: the Poles at Arnhem or their actions in the area of Nijmegen? How does Monty voicing this opinion provide evidence that the Poles were being made responsible for the actions of the 1st Airborne? Is there an actual source that links Monty to the conclusion that the Polish brigade was blamed for the outcome of the operation per the above? How does Browning's letter also support this position? What was the Polish government in exile reason for dismissing Sosabowski? Even if it was likely that they dismissed him due to British pressure, how does this prove he or the Polish troops were blamed for the failure at Arnhem? Does one source, from nearly twenty years ago (i.e. source 198), sum up many historical commentators opinions that the Poles were scapegoated and various historians believe that this happened and it was disgraceful? Do more modern works share this opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.86.206 (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In a word, yes. I have two more modern refs (although there's nothing wrong with a 20 year old one reporting the events of a battle 68 year old battle) that I'll add tonight. Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the British didn't need to 'blame the Poles' or make them 'scapegoats' for the failure of the operation. The operation was a lost cause from the moment the Son bridge was blown up. The whole Operation Market Garden depended on speed in getting XXX Corps down the road into Arnhem. For this reason it was essential that all three bridges be captured intact simultaneously so that XXX Corps could advance immediately, thus not allowing the German defenders time in-which to organise a more than hurried defence.

The additional German forces present would not have constituted the problem they later did if XXX Corps' tanks had been able to enter Arnhem as XXX Corps' tanks could have then dealt with them. However by the time the blown Son bridge had been replaced the German response would have made driving XXX Corps' tanks down the elevated roadway suicidal, their tanks would have been knocked-out one-by-one by the German anti-tank guns or become bogged-down in the marshy ground - much of Holland is reclaimed land and is below sea level.

This was not a case of XXX Corps failing to take a calculated risk. They KNEW this would happen with 100% certainty if they drove down the road after all that delay, because they knew the Germans were experienced enough not to have missed this possibility. The roadway was only wide enough for one line of vehicles, so if the lead tank got knocked out, there was nowhere for the following tanks to drive round it, the land on either side of the road was marshy, and if driven off the roadway the tanks would have bogged-down up to their hulls. it would have then just been a case of the German gunners knocking out the line of immobile tanks one after another. Sitting ducks. These subtleties of tank operations are not widely known among non-armoured forces, so they may not understand this. Hence the ill-informed criticism of XXX Corps by some of other forces involved in the operation for not advancing when the Son bridge was finally replaced. By then it was simply too late. XXX Corps would have lost most if not all of its vehicles for nothing.

The whole operation depended on that one single-lane road and the three bridges being kept open and intact for XXX Corps to advance into Arnhem. They weren't.

The operation failed due to the delay caused, which was neither the fault of the British nor the Poles. The failure to capture the Son bridge was very unlucky. But it killed the operation's only chance of success.

And you can bet your life that Montgomery would not have authorised the operation in the first place unless he had been convinced by the commanders involved that their troops were capable of carrying out successfully the tasks allocated to them. As it turned out, at least for one of the tasks, this proved not to be the case. And it wasn't his troops who failed. His forces were only supposed to hold Arnhem bridge for 48 hours, but held on for four days.

BTW, Montgomery never placed the blame for 'his' failures on anyone. He never said a word and took the mostly unjustified s**t that was thrown at him without complaint. Generally the people most responsible for 'his' failures were often the most vocal of his critics. Often they just weren't able to comprehend the true situation. Or perhaps they were just trying to shift blame away from themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.50 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hagen

I'm sorry that you disagree over the use of Hagan's book, but the simple fact is that the obituary is wrong. Theirs is the Glory was originally envisaged as a 30 public information film, and then grew into the larger movie from there. To claim, as the obituary does, that the book was the original motivation and basis for the film is totally misleading. The book describes Hagan's experiences alone, the film is the story of the entire battle. How can a movie that deals with the events of the entire division be based on the story of one man? You can find out a bit more about the origins of the film at [1], or [2] or in "Revisiting Theirs is the Glory", a guide booklet. None of these mention Hagan or his book.

I'm slightly concerned that your additions add undue weight to one book, amongst the dozens of personal stories written about Arnhem. I'm willing to leave it in though,as it almost certainly is the first to be written about the battle. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

New collection of photos of war monuments at Arnhem available at Wikimedia Commons

I just spotted this, which is likely to be of use: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photo_Tour_War_Monuments_in_Arnhem_2013 Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Nick. I've got a lot of pictures like this myself (minus the snow) that I keep meaning to upload on my arthritic computer - this saves me the bother! Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest edits

Wallie has been quite unable to discuss his changes here, instead taking to accusing me of vandalism. Here is his post on my talk page:

Vandalism - Battle of Arnhem You keep reverting my edits without reason and at the same time delivering personal attacks. You are also trying to rewrite history, blaming the Poles. Wallie (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Where am I attempting to rewrite history and blame the Poles? This is quite simply a reprehensible and stupid accusation, so I won't be spending any more time dealing with it. You've been reverted by three editors, because your changes are unnecessary and make the article poorer. We do not need subheadings like "British general's actions both grotesque and shameful". They are ridiculous. Sorry if you think that's a personal attack, but I personally couldn't care less given what you've accused me of above. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I do. It is a persoinal attack, and you have shown just that. It is a pity that bullies like you have taken over Wikipedia. It never used to be like that. This whole article is shameful. I myself had a relative in a related battle to this one, and know a lot about it. The bias of the article is clear. People like you are trying to maintain the myth that this was somehow an English victory and blames other countries for any failed aspects. I know you personally couldn't care less. That is because you are a bully and want to simply revert anything your biased viewpoint doesn't agree with. The "British general's actions both grotesque and shameful" is absolutely key to what happened to the Poles, who acted with honor. People like you don't want an encyclopedic article. Wallie (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I have no time for your unfounded accusations and cry wolf attitude. This article in no way blames to Poles and is quite clear to explain the fact that the attempts to shift the blame onto Sosabowski are viewed as unfair by later historians. Of course, if you can find evidence to support your bizarre accusations above, I'll be glad to hear it, but I can't imagine where you'll get it from. This article is GA and watched by several other people, so lets see if they think I'm some sort of demonic revisionist racist. Ranger Steve ^Talk 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No. You started off by making this personal, using derogatory language. This is typical of bullies to revert any edits by the target and to make personal attacks. On the topic of the Poles, the piece, which YOU insist belongs in the Allied Losses section, and keep reverting me, heaps blame on the Poles. It adds a small comment at the very end, if anyone is still reading, that Uruqhart thinks this is unjustified. You imply in your own words that you are "a demonic revisionist racist". Are you? Wallie (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry...but you're wrong. The article makes it clear that the Poles were not to blame for anything and airs the historical criticism of Montgomery and others when it came to Sosabowski's removal. The comments on the MilHist talk page that led me here scream POV and do more to hurt your cause than you may understand. There's no "heaping of blame on the Poles" in the Losses section or elsewhere. Intothatdarkness 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I can see I am wasting my time here. The article does criticize Sosabowski. That is very clear. It quotes English "authorities" with all sorts of bogus accusations, and this states that they may have had a reason to say them. "But still the mud sticks, doesn't it!". It is easy to accuse me of POV. I can see that people here are happy with the article just as it is, full of snide character assassinations. It really annoys me when others like me are accused of POV, but people like yourself think they have no POV. Arrogant sod! Sure I have a POV. It is clear that I cannot hurt my case more, as I am largely speaking to closed minds anyway. It is easy for people like Steve Ranger to just revert others. They are the true vandals, just p ing people off, and loving it. People like that are your heroes. It makes me sick. Wallie (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Now who's tossing around personal attacks? I suggest you take a break from that kind of behavior. Also, I never claimed to have no POV, and it's very arrogant of you to assume that you know mine. Intothatdarkness 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You inflamed the siutation further by saying "Sorry but you are wrong". I have never stooped to such depths. I never said you or anyone else was "wrong". There is no right or wrong, only interpretation or opinion. After all it is your POV against my POV. And believe me, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. It is a discussion. This whole business was started by Steve Ranger's constant reverting of everything I do and his nasty and hurtful personal attacks on me. Now he has pulled out since he has now gotten plenty of support. I find that sneaky at best. It is a pity people are supporting him over me. Wallie (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I became aware of this debate from Wallie's actions over on the Market Garden page. Despite a duel developing between Wallie and myself, on my talkpage, I am being completely impartial here. I have read through the section of this article that is being critiqued and glanced over the rest that deals with the Poles. I honestly, do not see any attacks being made upon Sosabowski or the Poles. Rather, in fact I see the opposite. The Poles are portrayed in a good light (hampered by circumstances and despite their best efforts, unable to help their beleaguer comrades across the river) and the post-battle controversy surrounding Sosabowski is established and rapidly put in its place. I don't see how a reader could come away thinking that it was Sosabowski's fault or that the article is attacking him (other than highlighting that historians believe he was hard to work with).

However, perhaps Wallie does have a valid point buried in all this. Perhaps the paragraph dealing with the controversy surrounding Sosabowski should be placed in its own subsection of 'Aftermath' and split from 'Allied losses'. Something like "Sosabowski controversy" or "Polish scapegoating controversy" etc. Such a naming would also help avoid any other reader somehow misinterpreting what they are reading.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with a controversy section like this. Given the heat around this, it makes more sense to have a separate section (and the discussion about the 82nd Airborne could go there as well, perhaps). And Wallie, you have no idea what my POV is on this, so you can stop attacking me. Trying to bully people to get your own way isn't acceptable. If you want revisions to stick, it's best to add them in conjunction with reliable sources supporting the additions, or discussing it calmly on the talk page. Intothatdarkness 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This article

A gentleman called Steve Ranger is simply reverting anything I do to this article. He tells me to discuss it on this talk page. I have, but he ignores what I have said and continues to revert whatever I add. Of course, this is essentially executing an editor. I called it bullying, but it is much worse. Wallie (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And of course your behaviour is, beyond question, whiter than white. Why don't we see what other editors have to say? If you hadn't begun your contribution to this article by edit warring and making improper suggestions about other editor's motives, you may have done a lot better. Accusing people of bullying and racism isn't a good start. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't explained yourself at all on this talk page. What you have had is a back-and-forth with Ranger Steve (talk · contribs) which has generated heat but no light. Be specific about what you think is wrong with the article and give how you think this can be corrected. The cycle is Bold, revert, discuss not Bold, revert, counter-revert, revert, counter-revert...and so on. If you want more eyes on the issue, drop an invite at the Military History wikiproject talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have. I made it very very clear. FIRST The article maligns Poles. I have stated this on a number of occasions. SECOND The piece maligning Poles is in the wrong section. The section is headed Allied Losses. I have stated this on a number of occasions. THIRD I moved the "the piece maligning Poles" into the main Aftermath section. I have stated this on a number of occasions. FOURTH I placed some subheadings to break up the Aftermath section which was too long, and spelt out the key points, which were hidden (too) deep in the text. FIFTH I explained that I was not happy about the maligning of various actors in this and related battles. I have stated this on a number of occasions. FINALLY I was insulted on a number of occasions. Everything I did was reverted, complete with insults. I find this approach a disturbing new aspect of Wikipedia practice. I have stated this on a number of occasions. I will go on stating that whenever any editor is acting in a wholly nasty and vengeful manner. Simply lieing down and taking punishment just drives people who are trying to improve things. It is just plain unprofessional at best, and really amounts to severe bullying behaviour. Wallie (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well well well. I have explained my reasons for the edits I made, as I was advised to address them on this talk page. I note the silence is deafening. Of course, if I attempt any edit, Steve Ranger will stalk and revert me. It is horrible to think that editors like Steve Ranger are given this power of blocking other users. Wallie (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You say that the article maligns the Polish, others say that the article as it stands clearly states that the Polish were blamed without good reason. This is an impasse - but perhaps it can be overcome by dealing with specifics, as in the actual words on the page which may be incorrect or do not represent what the source says.

Are there any specific sentences you think need to be re-written? Which actors are maligned/criticized without justification? and what do you think should be said about them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving on

I'll try and respond to as many points as possible here; this debate seems to have fragmented across two sections above and the milhist talkpage; it might be better to centralise any forward thinking ion one place (here perhaps?).

Firstly, and surely most importantly, I didn't sneakily "pull out"; I went to bed. It's odd, but I can't seem to stop myself falling asleep each night. Clearly I need help.

Secondly, I've had enough of these comments; Wallie, you have variously accused me of bullying, racism, revisionism, making "nasty and hurtful personal attacks", "using derogatory language", being a bully, "trying to maintain the myth that this was somehow an English victory", wanting to "revert anything your biased viewpoint doesn't agree with", not wanting an encyclopaedic article, "trying to rewrite history, blaming the Poles", being a "true vandal, just p ing people off, and loving it" and "just plain unprofessional at best". This is not to mention that you believe I have written a poor quality and shameful article. Please provide a diff or other evidence for these accusations if you intend to make them again. If not, then kindly shut up.

Thirdly, I'm wary of introducing a controversy section. Although Arnhem was clearly a massive mess, there's very little actual controversy over what went wrong. It's now well recognised what the causes of the failure were, so the only text that could really go in a controversy section would be the bit about the Poles. I'd be loath to give this its own section as that would only give it somewhat undue weight. Additionally what would we call it? Wallie has already indicated that he would require a title negative to the British, and using titles like those suggested by Enigma might (with the greatest of respect to Enigma) be construed as negative to the Poles (in that "Sosabowski controversy" might make it seem even more as if we're blaming the Poles). The current order of text has come about after several rewrites and complaints; it started much shorter but has evolved. Nonetheless it still works as good prose and merely shifting it about as has happened in the last two days leaves the paragraph isolated and without context.

What we could do is rework the entire aftermath section. Perhaps put current first paragraph in at the top, then the losses, then Arnhem, then have a separate 'analysis' section. I'm not a fan of these myself, but most of what's there already is essentially analysis anyway, so perhaps it'll look better that way. The analysis would open with the second paragraph of the current aftermath section and the Poles section could drop in below the air plan paragraph (with a little bit of rewriting). Any thoughts (reasonable without insults please). Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your points, but a controversy section could be used to organize some of the main critical analysis points (the 82nd Airborne and the Poles, for two examples). Titling it something like "Political Fallout" might be appropriate if there's enough in RS to give the Poles a longer section, though. Just some thoughts. Intothatdarkness 14:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If the sources are all in agreement that the treatment of Sosabowski was without merit (and a means to shift blame), then it is not a controversial subject as such but more need to be known. How did the Official History treat the issue? Was there a big outcry to rehabilitate Sosabowski's reputation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In regards to what the official history (Victory in the West Vol II) as to say, the answer is: not a lot. Sosabowski is, according to the index, mentioned once. That one time it is to mention he was in a meeting with some others. The Polish Brigade is mentioned in passing using to note what they did, when, and where. No apparent criticism. The reflection on the operation, from glancing through it, appears not to discuss the Poles or Sosabowski.

As for the name of a possible separate section to discuss Sosabowski, I concede to Steve's and Graeme's arguments. Excellent points made.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Really. How convenient. Sweep it all under the carpet. Have a discussion, and do nothing. How English. How Conservative. How not NPOV. Let the slurs on Poles remain. My question remains. Why the hell is the part criticizing Poles in the Allied Losses section? Wallie (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read this section of the article now and see no issues either - in fact it clearly says the Poles were made scapegoats (those words almost exactly). I'm wondering about your grasp of English now having actually read this. Anotherclown (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Steve Ranger. This is not about you and me. It is about the unfair criticism of the Poles. By the way, I did not say you were a revisionist. I certainly am a revisionist of history and do not consider this an insult. History may say that the Poles had "fought very badly" at Arnhem. I would like to revise history. It is an insult to all Poles. Relatives and friends of mine fought alongside Poles. They found them very brave. A close relative of mine is also maligned in a related article to this one. Wallie (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't revise history here so you are in the wrong place if that's what you want to do. This is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"You are also trying to rewrite history, blaming the Poles." Sounds like revisionism to me. History does not say the Poles fought badly at Arnhem. Like AnotherClown I have to wonder if you've even read the piece in question properly; much less the rest of the article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is your opinion that the Pole fought badly. I say they didn't. It is your opinion vs mine. Neither is history. Nor is this article's view of the Poles. I say again. You are a person who bullies others. That is clear by the way you supported Anotherclown to gave another go at me. Wallie (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look through the comments here and on the MilHist talkpage to see what editors have said. I have not found any editor to have said something like "It was the Poles fault". What they have said includes:

• Ranger Steve (talk · contribs) "History does not say the Poles fought badly at Arnhem"
• Anotherclown (talk · contribs) "...it clearly says the Poles were made scapegoats "

So what. It maligns them for sure. Scapegoats is a further negative comment against the Poles. It reinforces the whole tone of the article against the Poles, a bad tone. Wallie (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keith-264 (talk · contribs) " I had a read and thought that it made it clear that Sosabowski and the Polish contingent were scapegoated by the British high command"
• Intothatdarkness (talk · contribs) "The article makes it clear that the Poles were not to blame for anything "

But on to a more important matter. The article reflects the sources it is drawn from. So far the sources have not had any criticism of the Polish brigade's fighting. One of the sources that says Sosabowksi could be difficult to work with is also a source that says Browning's comments that Sosabowski was "loath to play his full part " were nonsense. If you feel there is (on the other hand) a sin of omission in that the actions the Poles were engaged in are not properly covered in this article, then please indicate where that omission lies and (as well) where that is said in a book or website so it can be properly referenced.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. Wallie, it is not your opinion versus mine; Wikipedia relies on reliable, published sources. The section on the Poles is full of them, and what's more doesn't criticise the Poles. Neither have I and you clearly have no idea what my own opinion is. So once again, please provide a diff or evidence for your baseless slurs or shut up. Ranger Steve ^Talk 18:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it does. Again, it is your opinion vs mine. The fact that you say "The section on the Poles is full of them, and what's more doesn't criticise the Poles." means that you are making a categoric statement that cannot be denied. I maintain that that is merely your point of view, and now some universal truth that only God could know. It is impossible to discuss things, when the counterparty believes his view is the truth. I call that fanaticism. Wallie (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I think you'll find the consensus above disagrees with you, so I think we're about done here. If you wish to spend your time calling people you don't know names and making baseless derogatory comments about them, get a Twitter account. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you know the disagree with me. I am not even allowed to edit on here. If I do, I know what will happem. You will immediately revert me, as you always do. I am not making deroggatory remarks about people, just you, as you repeatedly attacked me. Your whole stance has been bullying and controlling right from the start. You say "I think we're about done here". Who do you think you are? Some sort of a big boss? Wallie (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Diffs, evidence etc? No? Bye. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)::::

Diffs? Sure I differ from you. I don't like bullies. People are afraid to take you on, as you revert everything they do. We are at war. You said it. That is clear. Wallie (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments in the article regarding Poles

The Poles withdrew to Nijmegen where they helped defend the airborne corridor before returning to England in early October.

Comment: Implies they retreated and left the battle.

Shortly afterward, the British began making Sosabowski and the Polish Brigade a scapegoat for the failure at Arnhem, perhaps to cover their own failings.

Comment: Why mention this? it is simply someone's opinion. There is also the word "perhaps". That implies that the British were not to blame, but the Poles.

On 17 October, Montgomery informed Alan Brooke—Chief of the Imperial General Staff—that he felt the Polish forces had "fought very badly" at Arnhem and that he did not want them under his command.

Comment: Reinforcing how bad the Poles were. This not again not an historic fact, but an opinion.

Author David Bennett observes that Montgomery had almost certainly been fed grossly misinformed information that supported his own prejudices.

Comment: So what? No reason to criticize the Poles.

A month later, Browning wrote a long and highly critical letter of Sosabowski for Brooke's deputy. In it, he accused Sosabowski of being difficult, unadaptable, argumentative and "loth to play his full part in the operation unless everything was done for him and his brigade".

Comment: Again. Character assassination. More mud being slung at the Poles.

It is possible that Browning himself wanted to make Sosabowski a scapegoat

Comment: "it is possible"... more vagueries to damn the Poles further.

although it may equally have been the work of officers of the 43rd Division.

Comment: More confusion. Who cares what they think. POV??

Browning recommended that Sosabowski be replaced - suggesting Lieutenant Colonel Jachnik or Major Tonn - and in December the Polish government in exile duly dismissed him in a move almost certainly made under British pressure.

Comment: More malignment of the Poles.

Although it may be fair to say that Sosabowski was difficult to work with, he scapegoating is judged as disgraceful by many historical commentators.

Comment: OK. But wse have to get to the end to read this. The damage has been done over and over to the Poles.

Brian Urquhart—who had done so much to warn his superiors about the dangers of Arnhem —described the criticism of Sosabowski and the brigade as "grotesque" and that his dismissal was a "shameful act".

Comment: A further comment at the end. I would have thought this is the main point.

Wallie (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wallie, do you agree that after the battle their was a effort made - by the British - to place blame on the Poles for the failure at Arnhem?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the content of this section as a whole, but the comments about the Poles, British opinions thereof, and Sosabowski do -not- belong in the "Allied losses" section of the article. The Polish casualties should be laid out in a format consistent with that used to describe the casualties of the British units described in the two preceding paragraphs. As it looks now, it seems like the paragraph about the Poles was inserted at a different time than the comments about the British casualties and with little regard for its relevance to that section of the article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've proposed a reorganisation of the aftermath section above. You're correct in how it came about, but it does at present maintain a narrative describing the subsequent 'stories' (for want of a better word) of the three principal Allied units involved, which is why no-one has seem fit to move it before. I'm loath to see it just deleted or moved as Wallie has attempted to do. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No! You do not own Wikpedia. This is a war between us. You are loath of me. I can live with that. Wallie (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

To address a couple of points of what Wallie (talk · contribs) brought forward. Not because I cannot address the others, but to work on them in more manageable chunks.

"The Poles withdrew to Nijmegen where they helped defend the airborne corridor before returning to England in early October.

(Wallie's) Comment: Implies they retreated and left the battle."

Everyone withdrew from Arnhem. And the airborne units would have been removed from the front as soon as possible. That happens to any unit when it can. Regroup, recover, bring in replacements for casualties. The Poles were a parachute unit not line infantry, so they were not suitable for remaining on the front line once they could be relieved. And base for them was back in the UK.

"It is possible that Browning himself wanted to make Sosabowski a scapegoat, although it may equally have been the work of officers of the 43rd Division

(Wallie's) Comment: "it is possible"... more vagueries to damn the Poles further."

"Possible" applies to whether it is Browning's (hence "himself") intent or the 43rd's intent to make Sosabowski the scapegoat. Not whether it is possible that it was failings by the Polish units.

Possible means not definite. This is an encyclopedia. It deals with facts, not maybes. Find out the truth or remove the confusion. Wallie (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Now if the text is not clear, please suggest an alternate phrasing that covers the subject.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made a very simple change that removes the discussion of the Allied units' subsequent fates from the losses, but maintains the narrative. Hopefully this will solve the problem of the placing of the content, but will of course do nothing to alleviate Wallie's numerous complaints. Until I see hard evidence that the paragraph is incorrect or misleading (currently six editors see no problem with it and Wallie is alone in his position), I don't see any need to change the content of it. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not made "complaints". Just because you can line up plenty of supporters means you are popular. It doesn't mean you are telling the truth. Just bceause I have no support doesn't mean I am a liar also. I am quite prepared to be alone, as I think the article is wrong, and I won't be bullied by you or your gang. Wallie (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ranger Steve. I think your change is a good start. May I suggest as well -- the phrase "The Poles withdrew to Nijmegen" -- change to "As part of a general Allied adjustment of the front lines of the salient (or simply: withdrawal), the Polish brigade was moved to Nijmegen." As the phrase is currently worded, there is somewhat an implication that the Poles were alone in withdrawing -- probably not a sense that was intended. Regarding the text that follows. While I do not agree with Wallie's reading of the meaning, the text has a bit of wordiness about it, almost a gossipy tone ("and can you imagine what those British generals had to say about the Poles!"). Perhaps it is possible to simply mention that there was a dispute among the British leadership regarding the performance of the Polish troops and Sosabowski, and that historians today find no great problems with the performance of the Polish brigade? (My apologies, I know that is wordy, but you're no doubt aware that explaining these situations in any detail involves a lot of elucidation.) I would be willing to draft a suggested text if you wish. My final concern about the comments of the British generals is only somewhat related to this article. If in fact there was serious doubt about the further employment of Polish troops in the 21st Army Group, then why did they employ the Polish 1st Armoured Division during the liberation of The Netherlands in April 1945? The comments to that effect sound as if they were uttered in the heat of the Arnhem battle, and were something that was strongly reconsidered during the long winter of 1944-45 (my take -- I understand reliable sources and all that -- but a comment worth making on this talk page if nowhere else.) Finally, thank you for your efforts in regards to this article. Once, a long time ago, I was privileged to take a tour of the Market-Garden battlefields in which some of the soldiers who had fought there briefed our group on their role in the battles. The efforts of these men, IMO, deserve a certain bit of celebration in the context of the Wikipedia Project. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with access to the sources cited (Middlebrook, and Bennett) could investigate and find out if Monty was saying he didn't want the Polish paratroops under his command, or Polish units in general. And/or what his "own prejudices" were. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Google Books gives us access to Middlebrooke, the article accurately reflects the book. To give the full sentence on Monty (note: it doesn't allow one to read what Browning said about Sosabowski, so someone with the book will need to reply if we need to discuss that part):

"This process [criticizing the Poles] started on 17 October, when Montgomery wrote Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke ... referring to Arnhem: 'Polish Para Brigade fought very badly and the men showed no keenness to fight if it meant risking their own lives. I do not want this brigade here and possibly you may like to send them to join other Poles in Italy.'" (Middlebrooke, p. 447, http://books.google.com/books?id=hJSSl9FUqaUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Arnhem+1944:+The+Airborne+Battle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u3SwU5XKK6_O8QHLwIHoDQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=447&f=false)

We also have access to Bennett, although without page numbers. Again, the article reflects the work accurately. It repeats Monty's quote (above) and then states:

"Someone had clearly been feeding Montgomery's prejudices with a gross distortion of the facts. And prejudices they were. The only compliment that Montgomery ever paid the 1st Polish Armoured Division, which had fought so valiantly in the Falaise Gap and throughout the Normandy campaign, was that it needed a kick in the pants."(Bennett, http://books.google.com/books?id=QIQ_0WtkGjYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Magnificent+Disaster&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F3awU7eYKZPF8QGFvIHQAw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=very%20badly&f=false)

Hope the above and links help sort this out. The impression I am given, from Bennett, is that the whole situation developed as political maneuvering to keep the Polish Brigade under the command of 1st Airborne. Although the actual act of retaining the brigade didn't happen until November and Sosabowski was not sacked until after that.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This whole article citing various Englishmen criticizing the Poles and their leaders is highly biased. Unfortunately, people here cannot see this as clearly as I can, as they are English themselves, and think that England can do no wrong. As an example, the French lost the Battle of Waterloo. In that article, there is no criticism of any troops for the French defeat in the aftermath. The aftermath records the history after the battle, not some petty slandering of a particular small nation and their brave leader. Wallie (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between English and British, please learn it!

I don't need to. I am refering to the English, not the British. Wallie (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, which you have yet to address, and in the aim of bring this to a conclusion: Do you agree that there was criticism leveled at the Poles, by senior British officers, following the battle and as a result of the battle? Yes or No?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, which you have yet to address, and in the aim of bring this to a conclusion: Do you agree that there was criticism leveled at the Poles, by senior British officers, following the battle and as a result of the battle?

No Wallie (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Taking it one step at a time then. Wallie, do you agree that there was criticism leveled at the Poles, by senior British Army officers, following the battle? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you are asking the wrong question. I would ask "who should criticism be leveled at? - the Poles? the English? the Americans? the Scots? the Dutch? every soldier that took part? Where does it end? Why single out the Poles?

I think the problem is that someone put this anti-Pole stuff in, and it is established as part of the article, and people have gotten used to it, feel comfy with it. I don't think there should be comments regarding individuals in the Aftermath section by "senior British officers" (well, not all, but only one or two Englishmen) or anyone else. It is not factual or historic. It is just someones' POV. I like to stick to facts, not character assassinations. Wallie (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You do understand that Wikipedia reflects reliable sources don't you? Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand you. Every time I edit something, you revert it. Are you the gatekeeper for all of Wikipedia? Wallie (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. Can you answer the question now? And GraemeLegget's? Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, after seeing that Wallie does not believe there was criticism (the fact that it was unfair being irrelevant), I don't see how this discussion can come to some form of constructive end if his analysis of reliable sources is that it is just "one or two Englishmen" opinions and should be ignored. It makes one wonder why back in 2004, that the Dutch honoured the Polish Brigade and the press was full of stories reinforcing what this article states: that the Poles were mistreated because of the opinion of "one or two Englishmen". It makes one wonder why historians talk about this, if it is just irrelevant chit chat.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the Polish issue, this article does seem to omit a lot of the controversy that is covered by what appear to be reliable, verifiable sources; for example this one [3]. Whether we editors personally think the Poles were unfairly blamed or not is irrelevant, pper WP:NOTTRUTH. We're obliged to represent the sources. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Instead of all this anguish over the Poles being made 'scapegoats' perhaps some of you might like to just consider the possibility that Montgomery's criticism might have had some validity. It might just be the case that Montgomery had had enough of Sosabowski not following pre-agreed orders or of his endless, needless, arguing or complaining over things not being how he would have liked them to be and which were by then unchangeable. Usually when properly led the Poles fought well.

BTW, the whole Arnhem 'Market Garden' operation as agreed by Montgomery was planned in 7 days and intended to last no more than 48 hours - that's why the 1st Airborne Division had orders to hold the Arnhem bridge for that amount of time only - and if the original operation had taken place as-planned it would have, however after the plan was made it was discovered that some of the transport aircraft were unable to operate at night or in bad weather - the air drops were planned to operate continuously throughout the first night - so this led to the air drops having to take place during the day only, which then meant the drops taking several days to complete instead of one day and a night. These air drops then ran into bad weather over the UK (fog) that delayed - some of the transports couldn't fly at night or in bad weather, remember - the drops even longer.

BTW, some ground commanders did not understand how weather affected air operations, hence some complained; these were generally the same commanders who failed to understand the requirements for tank warfare, i.e., firm ground that a heavy vehicle can drive over without getting bogged-down - much of Holland was and is below sea level with marshland not firm enough to take the 30-ton weight of a tank, which meant the armour was confined to using the roads only. This in turn meant their freedom to manoeuvre if encountering the enemy was severely restricted thus making it of supreme importance that the bridges be captured intact so that XXX Corps could race at full-speed for Arnhem along the metalled road before the German defenders could organise a proper defence.

A 'proper defence' BTW, means the movement and siting of any and all available German tanks and towed anti-tank guns most of which could knock-out a Sherman or Cromwell - which are confined to using the one road, and only the road - at ranges approaching a mile or 1.5 kilometres.

Then a vital bridge was blown instead of being captured, which caused even more delay allowing the defenders to organise a proper defence, by which time it was too risky for XXX Corps to advance any further. XXX Corps was an armoured force and so the presence of 'resting' panzer units should not have had the disastrous effect it was later to cause if the tanks of XXX Corps had been able to advance on-schedule. That is why the operation was not called-off when the existence of the resting Panzer forces around Arnhem was discovered from the RAF PRU reports.

Market Garden was a risky operation that had more than its fair share of bad luck. That's all. There were good reasons for the decisions made, even if some critics fail to understand these reasons.

BTW, much of the criticism from the Poles I suspect is a result of Cold War politics, Poland was behind the Iron Curtain for most of the post-war period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Battle of Arnhem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128114236/http://www.defendingarnhem.com:80/landstorm-nederland.htm to http://www.defendingarnhem.com/landstorm-nederland.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929194956/http://www.pdsa.org.uk/about-us/animal-bravery-awards/dickin-medal-pigeons/ to http://www.pdsa.org.uk/about-us/animal-bravery-awards/dickin-medal-pigeons#awards-made-between-1943--1945
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619170132/http://www.assaultgliderproject.co.uk:80/gpr.html to http://www.assaultgliderproject.co.uk/GPR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091127213205/http://www.driel-polen.nl:80/downloads/folder_monument-sosabowski-uk.pdf to http://www.driel-polen.nl/downloads/folder_monument-sosabowski-uk.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716063500/http://www.lintjes.nl/_en/militaire_willemsorde/mwo_polen.html to http://www.lintjes.nl/_en/militaire_willemsorde/mwo_polen.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090915180741/http://www.driel-polen.nl:80/uk/index-uk.htm to http://www.driel-polen.nl/uk/index-uk.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626175417/http://airborneassault.org.uk:80/home/html/index.html to http://www.airborneassault.org.uk/home/html/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203172116/http://defendingarnhem.com:80/index.htm to http://www.defendingarnhem.com/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Worldview issues - German medals?

Having just read the article, I think there are a few worldview issues here and there.

Most notably, I'd point out that there is a lengthy section on British soldiers who were decorated after the battle, but no Germans are mentioned. Surely some of the Fritzies won Iron Crosses, or similar?

Is this vandalism?

'English author Richard Adams, himself an officer in the seatail of 250th (Airborne) Light Company'

What is a 'seatail'?

The Wiki page on Richard Adams has him in Brigade Liaison. Is 'seatail' a title, or just random vandalism?Dean1954 (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The seatail is the non air transported component of the division, primarily vehicles, transport and administrative units. In this instance it's correct, although landtail would be acceptable if there was no water involved in the follow up. I'll make the meaning clearer though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Flower Children

The Flower Children are missing in this article: After the Battle of Arnhem, children who had lived near the scene of the fighting were given a war grave to maintain; young people who laid flowers at hundreds of graves of Allied casualties in a ceremony after the end of the war. I just noticed after starting a stub about Wil Rieken using references: here and here. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is principally interested in the battle itself and there is only a small section relating to memorials, which is appropriate weighting. There is a reference to the flower children in the Arnhem Oosterbeek War Cemetery article, where it seems more appropriate. Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Day 1 then the date

Why use two temporal signifiers? Keith-264 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)