Interview: Antony Beevor
Ahead of his appearance at the inaugural Chelsea History Festival in October 2019, Sir Antony Beevor discusses his book about the “heroic failure” and severe consequences of Operation Market Garden
The historian discusses his latest book and Chelsea History Festival
2019 marks the 75th anniversary of Operation Market Garden. This daring Allied airborne plan aimed to secure crossings across the
River Rhine, advance into northern Germany and swiftly end the Second World War. In reality Market Garden was a costly failure that resulted in high casualties and delayed the Allied push into Germany for months. The operation was also a remarkable feat of arms due to the extreme courage of Allied troops, which was epitomised by the actions of British paratroopers at Arnhem.
One of the most recent histories about the events of September 1944 has been the Sunday Times number one bestseller Arnhem:
The Battle For The Bridges, 1944. Written by renowned historian Sir Antony Beevor, Arnhem debunks the myths surrounding Market Garden by using overlooked sources from Dutch, British, American, Polish and German archives.
Sir Antony Beevor discusses the highly flawed plans for the operation, the bravery of soldiers and civilians alike, and the often neglected but huge suffering of the Dutch in the wake of the Allies’ failure.
WHAT WAS THE INCENTIVE BEHIND WRITING WHAT IS YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN FOR OPERATION MARKET GARDEN? Arnhem?
The main reason was that I was always rather irritated by other books that never really probed into the disaster of the planning. The other problem was that the real suffering of the
Dutch and the consequences of the failure of Operation Market Garden had not really been developed. I’m afraid that the histories of the past have always focussed purely on the military side.
As the great Professor Sir Michael Howard rightly emphasises it should be the “history of war”. This means that one should be a historian of war and not a military historian, which is a very different matter. You should look at the way civilians are affected just as much as soldiers on operations, as well as their success or failure. It was a very bad plan, right from the top and right from the start. Montgomery tried to impose his plan against the instructions of Eisenhower and his own War Office. In any airborne operation the British Army left the planning to the Royal Air Force or consulted them. Montgomery refused to do that and was convinced that the RAF was cowardly. He had no idea about airborne operations but he laid down the law. General ‘Boy’ Browning then told the American air force commanders the plan but they pointed out that it couldn’t be done.
This was because the airborne distances were greater than the calculations Browning had made and that they couldn’t stick two gliders behind each tug aircraft. The days were also shorter and, crucially, this meant that they couldn’t have two lifts on the first day. All of the assumptions were completely turned upside down and Browning should have said to Montgomery, “We must re-think the whole thing.”
The other problem was that the aircraft, paratroopers and gliders landed on the wrong side of Arnhem, eight miles away from their target. This meant that the paratroopers lost all surprise, which is the one weapon that airborne troops need. If you don’t have surprise and are too lightly armed you’re going to get a very bloody mess. I’m afraid that’s exactly what happened.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON LIEUTENANT COLONEL JOHN FROST’S AND 2 PARA’S STAND AT ARNHEM BRIDGE?
They were incredibly brave and fought extremely well. The Panzer Grenadiers were full of admiration and considering their numbers they outfought the Germans there. But, of course, they were in a minority and didn’t have any heavy weapons. There is absolutely no criticism that can be held against them there and Frost’s leadership was superb. The real problem lay with the planning and that is the answer to what went wrong. Arnhem was a very unnecessary defeat.
HOW DETRIMENTAL WAS THE FAILURE OF OPERATION MARKET GARDEN FOR THE DUTCH?
It was utterly disastrous. Not only did many of them, perhaps around 3,000, get killed in the fighting but also, because of their bravery in helping the Allies, the real horror came later when the Germans took their revenge. Many of the stories in the book are about the bravery of the civilians and particularly the degree of suffering. The Dutch had gone out with their farm carts to help transport supplies and young teenagers had even dug trenches for paratroopers. They did anything to help and the women would pull the wounded into their houses to tend them. They did this even though the Germans would deliberately shoot them down in the street because they were regarded as traitors for having helped the British.
The Germans took their revenge afterwards by cutting off supplies to the major cities during the winter of 1944-45, which became known as the ‘Hunger Winter’. It’s quite astonishing and wonderful that the Dutch are so incredibly kind and generous to the veterans who go back and are welcomed. Considering all they suffered as a result of the disaster, they show gratitude for the attempt to liberate them.
They don’t in any way rub it in that they suffered probably more than the British soldiers as a result of its failure. They had much to forgive and they certainly did forgive.
DESPITE BEING A DISASTER, IS ARNHEM’S FAMOUS PLACE IN BRITISH MILITARY HISTORY JUSTIFIED?
It’s justified from the point of view of the bravery. That is certainly true but I don’t think it’s justified from the effect of the battle – far from it. The trouble is that the reason why Arnhem has become such an, I hate to use the word, ‘iconic’ battle in the British mentality is because the British do have a certain fascination with heroic failure. Let’s face it, Arnhem is one of the largest examples of that and maybe that says something about the British character. It’s quite revealing.