Yeah, not trying to throw shade on XIX Corps or 1st Army, but there are good reasons Horrocks didn't clear the Scheldt on the 4th September 😉
Replies
It's a funny thing, Sir Fatuous, but I just don't see MG delivering the prize it offered even if 100% successful. The idea that the US, much less the American public would be ok with subordinating themselves to an Anglo-Canadian push to the Ruhr (much less one led by Monty) is difficult to envisage.
sep 2, 2025, 3:47 pm • 3 0 • view
For the first bit, it depends on what you define as the prize. Originally it held the prospects of outflanking 15th Army, opening approaches to Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and clearing V-Weapon launch sites to the west, and outflanking the West Wall and opening approaches to the Ruhr to the east But..
sep 2, 2025, 5:35 pm • 3 0 • view
The outlook grows rapidly dimmer, until by the 10th when Monty and Ike meet, its pretty clear its just to seize a staging area for future ops, ideally with a bridgehead over the Rhine, open the approaches to the Scheldt, and to push the Germans back from Antwerp As Ike remarked:
sep 2, 2025, 5:35 pm • 3 0 • view
The urge to carry on into the Ruhr after turning the West Wall would have been too much to resist for many, nobody really thought otherwise, regardless of logistics or the lack of them. Eisenhower should have told Monty straight - clear the Scheldt whilst taking an equally strong hand with Patton.
sep 2, 2025, 5:54 pm • 2 0 • view
Monty knew he wasn't strong enough to take the Ruhr without substantial help from Brad (which was not forthcoming). I think Eisenhower mostly made the right call here. MG or something very like it was absolutely necessary to secure Antwerp
sep 2, 2025, 6:07 pm • 2 0 • view
And Monty knew it but I just don't see the Americans being able to swallow the Monty Medicine even if he was granted the additional US help. On the other hand, Monty had said even before the end of the Normandy that he would serve under Bradley IF it meant a single thrust, not a broad front advance.
sep 2, 2025, 6:12 pm • 1 0 • view
The last bit about pushing the Germans back from Antwerp passes virtually unremarked in the historiography. The fact that you can't operate your key port when its within easy striking distance of the enemy is a curiously ignored in most analysis Eisenhower again:
sep 2, 2025, 5:35 pm • 3 0 • view
It's doubtful the Germans would have been able to seriously threaten Antwerp had the Allies not pushed north, The Bulge clearly demonstrated the limits of the Wehrmacht by that stage. Eisenhower's writing reminds me of Patton's 'we could still lose this war' comment in his diary from early '45.
sep 2, 2025, 6:01 pm • 2 0 • view
Monty was by no means the only one who wrote with one eye to the future...
sep 2, 2025, 6:45 pm • 1 0 • view
The second bit, well that is in fact what happened when Eisenhower left 9th Army under Montgomery's command after all the Ardennes fun and games 😉
sep 2, 2025, 5:35 pm • 1 0 • view
For sure.
sep 2, 2025, 12:05 pm • 0 0 • view