Arts, Books, Britain, History, Second World War

Book Review – Arnhem: The Battle For The Bridges, 1944

REVIEW

This book, written in Beevor’s inimitable and gripping narrative style, is about much more than a single dramatic battle. It looks into the very heart of war. And, why, the Battle of Arnhem was so very wrong from the outset.

EVERY time a paratrooper in Britain’s airborne regiments goes to the stores to pick up his parachute as a prelude to going into action, it’s handed over with the same old corny gallows-humour banter – ‘Bring it back if it doesn’t work and we’ll exchange it.’

You could apply the same logic to the Parachute Regiment’s most famous World War II mission: the abortive attempt to capture from the Germans the bridge over the Rhine at the town of Arnhem in the north-east of the Netherlands in the autumn of 1944.

It spectacularly did not work – and, once it got under way, there was no chance of exchanging it for one that did.

In ten days of blood-letting battles along a 65-mile axis, thousands of men needlessly died, were wounded or taken prisoner, while afterwards, the Dutch people, who aided the British, were savagely punished by their Nazi occupiers with summary executions and deliberate starvation of the entire population.

Others you might also like:

. Book Review: ‘Secret Pigeon Service’ 

. Book Review: Birth of the RAF (& Gallery)

Arnhem – codenamed Operation Market Garden – was never the partial victory that deluded and self-serving British top brass, headed by the vainglorious Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, always claimed it to be. It was a military disaster and had been one in the making from its very inception.

The idea was to catch Hitler unawares by invading Germany through the back door. But the plan was so full of holes that, like a defective parachute, it was never going to float.

 

THERE was much heroism, narrated in this absorbing new account of the battle with the eye for telling personal detail that we have come to expect from Antony Beevor. A British soldier hurls himself from the first-floor window of a house on to a German tank in an attempt to drop a grenade into the turret, but is shot down in mid-air.

There is much poignant suffering, too, endured bravely. A teenage recruit croaks the opening bars of God Save The King as he lies dying in hospital and those around him try to stand to attention in their beds until he falls silent.

At Arnhem bridge itself, where the advance party of Paras – outnumbered and battered by German tanks – hung on for four days in the vain hope of a relief column arriving, one soldier’s jet-black hair turned white with stress.

And there is much horror, epitomised by an officer in the thick of it who saw ‘Mervyn with his arm hanging off, Angus clinging to the grass in his agony and a soldier running across an opening, the quick crack and the surprised look as he clutched his neck and then convulsed as more bullets hit him.

‘I only hope the sacrifice that was ours will have achieved something – yet I feel it hasn’t.’

He was dead right. It all proved pointless. As Beevor scathingly makes clear, this was not just ‘a bridge too far’, the much-quoted epithet about Arnhem which suggests laudable over-ambition. This was a campaign that should never have been launched in the first place. One can understand the mood that encouraged it. Since D-Day, there had been months of hard fighting in Normandy before, in August, the Allied forces broke out and raced through France, with the Germans in full retreat.

But over-enthusiasm allied to war-weariness should have given way to good military sense and probably would have done if Monty had not felt slighted by the ascendancy of Eisenhower and the other American generals and been determined to put on his own tally-ho show.

With Allied forces massed in southern Holland, he proposed a dramatic thrust to the north-east, dropping airborne troops – consisting of parachutists and soldiers in gliders – behind enemy lines to seize strategic bridges and hold them until the tanks and land troops advancing overland caught up with them.

With Arnhem (the furthest away) under their belts, they could spill out into Germany itself. Next stop Berlin and goodbye Hitler.

But there was a basic flaw, as the Dutch Prince Bernhard, knowing the geography of his own country, warned Monty. It could take for ever to get those tanks 65 miles up a narrow road with water meadows on either side, rather than the two days Monty thought possible, leaving those paratroopers up ahead at risk of being stranded. The prince was ignored, as were all the other naysayers. Optimism (and Monty’s egocentricity) triumphed over reality.

It might just have succeeded if every component of the plan had worked. But, in practice, blunder after blunder compounded the original conceptual error.

The fundamental concept defied military logic, Beevor writes, because it made no allowance for anything to go wrong, nor for the enemy’s likely reaction.

Yet, as the operation collapsed into ignominy, surrender and retreat, stuffed-shirt British generals such as Frederick ‘Boy’ Browning looked round for excuses and shamefully criticised a Polish brigade to divert attention from their own failings.

It was typical of the arrogance behind the whole unfortunate Arnhem episode.

Casualty figures were colossal. Of 12,000 airborne soldiers who went into battle, 1,500 were killed and 6,500, many of them badly wounded, were taken prisoner. Only a third made it home.

In some units, the attrition was even greater. The 4th Parachute Brigade started out for Arnhem with more than 2,000 soldiers and returned with just nine officers and 260 other ranks.

Strong men wept when they saw how many of their comrades were not coming back – all the more so when they realised how little, if anything, had been gained by their sacrifice.

This, indeed, was a case of lions led by donkeys. As for its consequences, it was not just that the mission failed dismally in the boast of its instigators that it would shorten the war by six months. Hardest of all to swallow is that it worsened the fate of the people of the Netherlands, who were subjected in the aftermath to Nazi vengeance.

The town of Arnhem was evacuated at gunpoint, its entire population forced to leave on foot with what little they could carry, before it was looted and reduced to rubble and ashes.

In Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the other major cities, food supplies were withdrawn, and the population lived – or, rather, died – through the harsh winter of 1944-45 on a diet of sugar beet and thin air.

Emaciated bodies lay in the streets as the death toll rose to 20,000. Thousands of resistance fighters and hostages were executed in a vicious security clampdown. This was the unseen cost of Arnhem and the author counts it out with unconcealed dismay.

But there is inevitably a noticeable change in tone from his previous much-acclaimed World War II histories on Stalingrad, D-Day and the fall of Berlin.

The uplifting drama of these was their part in the Allied road to victory. It put the undoubted horror in a sort of perspective; made some sense of the slaughter.

This time, though, he turns his adept craft as a military historian to a subject of not just defeat, but dunderheaded stupidity.

It will likely leave most readers horrified and deeply downhearted at the unnecessary waste of it all.

– Arnhem: The Battle For The Bridges, 1944 by Antony Beevor is published by Viking for £25

Standard
History, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States

Palestine: Another body blow for peace

GAZA BORDER

Gaza

THE shocking images of slaughter at the Gaza border earlier this week are a public relations disaster for Israel. At this very moment in time when the Jewish state is marking the 70th anniversary of its foundation, its government finds itself the target of global anger and outrage.

An occasion which may perhaps been one for national pride is now badly tarnished by media coverage of its soldiers shooting teenagers and civilian protestors.

History, of course, has always offered fuel for such controversy in this combustible region. It is filled with the legacies of territorial disputes and religious clashes. Israel’s “birthday” was always likely to provoke some sort of turmoil.

For the creation of the state of Israel is a source of profound grievance to many Palestinians, who believe that their people were driven off their own land and displaced into Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

In this narrative of despair, they feel they were robbed of their livelihoods and their nationhood through the event known as the “Nakba” or the “Catastrophe” whose anniversary fell on May 15, 2018.

Tensions were always bound to be high at this period, particularly as Palestinian demonstrators – some of them crudely armed – gathered on the border with Israel to demand the right of return to the home of their forebears.

But what has really ignited the powder keg was the decision by the White House to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the divided city of Jerusalem, which the state of Israel regards as its capital.

It is a step that has inflamed discord with the Palestinians, who lay claim to the eastern part of the city and whose Muslim faith has several sacred sites within its walls, as of course do Jews.

It was the fear of inflaming tensions that prevented a succession of US presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, from implementing a pledge to shift the American embassy to Jerusalem.

But Donald Trump, never a man to follow political precedent, has ignored such doubts.

He adopted his stance partly because he has always been a big admirer of Israel and is deeply suspicious of Muslim fundamentalism in the region, as he demonstrated in his decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal – a policy that was eagerly welcomed by the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Mr Trump also has close personal ties to Israel, for his daughter Ivanka is married to Jared Kushner, whose family has donated money to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

For the Palestinians, all of this is highly provocative, making a mockery of US talk about the need for a peaceful solution to the long-standing conflict. This mood of anger is also sedulously cultivated by Hamas, the ruthless terrorist organisation which runs Gaza and relies on the culture of victimhood to maintain its iron grip on power.

That is why it has always been more interested in fomenting bitterness and hatred towards Israel than in improving living standards in the Gaza strip. And why the fact that so many martyrs have died – or been sacrificed – suits its cause.

Endlessly exploiting the climate of indignation, Hamas continually preaches the apocalyptic gospel of the armed struggle and martyrdom.

The interests of Hamas are served by turning a youthful, seething, radicalised population’s anger towards Israel.

That is the opposite of what Israel wants on its border with Gaza. Many British people, viewing the heart-rending reports of bloodshed, will understandably feel that the Israeli authorities grossly over-reacted to the demonstrations.

However, there are two crucial considerations to bear in mind about the Israeli response. First, one of the central themes of the radical Palestinian movement is to reclaim former homelands that are now Israeli territory. It is a drive called “The Great March of Return”.

 

YET, by its very nature, this would threaten the very existence of the state of Israel. The security forces must therefore feel that, however savage the consequences, they cannot allow thousands of protesters in a human wave to cross the border and squat in Israel.

Second, although most of the demonstrators were unarmed, some definitely were. Hamas’s cynical eagerness to exploit the discontent means that there were bound to have been hardened insurgents in the crowd, carrying knives, guns, petrol bombs or even rocket launchers.

The entire experience of Israeli history over the last 70 years is filled with attacks from its enemies. Almost every flashpoint becomes another challenge to the state’s right to exist. That is why the Israeli forces must be so vigilant.

It could be that the hard-line tactics actually work in deterring further border demonstrations. But the tough response could have the opposite effect, emboldening Hamas and fuelling radical fury as well as sympathy for the Palestinians from abroad.

Certainly, there is little doubt that the region will descend into further strife. In the face of the casualties caused by Israeli guns, the more moderate Palestinians, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and a traditional Arab secular nationalist, have been pushed to make radical protests too, to keep pace with popular anger.

Hamas will continue to say that figures such as Abbas have achieved nothing with their impulse to compromise, with the result that force now must be used.

Similarly, the rapprochement between Israel and Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan – inspired by their shared fear of a dominant Shia Iran – could now break down.

The three nations formed a close alliance in opposition to president Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

But what is certain is that it will now be far more difficult for any predominately Muslim state to work with Israel. For those who may have hoped that Palestinian people-power protests would help bring harmony, this is another bitter disappointment in a region scarred by decades of lost opportunities for peace.

. Reference and appendage:

Six Day War

Standard
Britain, European Union, National Security, Russia

Putin blasted by MI5 for ‘fog of lies’ over Salisbury

BRITAIN’S INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Head of MI5: Andrew Parker

Intro: Andrew Parker speaks out for the first time since the Salisbury nerve agent attack

THE head of MI5, Britain’s intelligence service, has launched an excoriating attack on Russia, accusing Vladimir Putin’s regime of flagrant breaches of international law.

Andrew Parker used his first public speech outside of the UK by taking aim at the Russian president and his “aggressive and pernicious” agenda.

He told European security chiefs the Salisbury poisonings were a deliberate and malign act that could turn Russia into a “more isolated pariah”. He also launched a strident attack on the “fog of lies, half-truths and obfuscation” that pours out of Mr Putin’s propaganda machine.

Mr Parker’s speech in Berlin was the first time he has spoken publicly since the attempted assassination in Salisbury of former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, in March.

The attack, with the Novichok toxin, marked the first use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War.

The MI5 director-general said that with an unrelenting international terrorist threat and rising state aggression, the UK and Europe need to work together more than ever.

His words are likely to have been interpreted as a warning to Brussels to agree a post-Brexit deal on security cooperation. That has been in growing doubt amid a row over whether Britain will still be allowed to participate in the EU’s multi-billion-pound Galileo global navigation satellite project. But Mr Parker reserved his toughest language for Russia, saying that Mr Putin’s government is pursuing an agenda through aggressive actions by its intelligence services.

He accused the Kremlin of flagrant breaches of international rules, warning that the Salisbury attack was a “deliberate and targeted malign activity”.

Britain’s security agencies are still trying to identify those individuals behind the attack. It is understood there are several persons of interest who are back in Moscow and may have been in the UK at the time of the poisoning.

Mr Parker, who has been head of the security service since 2013, also condemned the unprecedented level of Russian disinformation following the attack, saying it highlights the need “to shine a light through the fog of lies, half-truths and obfuscation that pours out of their propaganda machine”.

In the wake of the attack, Theresa May said “Kremlin-inspired” accounts were posting lies as “part of a wider effort to undermine the international system”.

Mr Parker did, however, praise the international response to the incident in his speech which was hosted by Germany’s BfV domestic intelligence service.

He noted that 28 European countries agreed to support the UK in expelling scores of Russian diplomats.

In 2017, Mrs May’s national security adviser, Mark Sedwill, said the threat from Moscow was worse than ever imagined. He warned that it was intensifying and diversifying.

 

MR Parker also told EU security leaders in Berlin that Internet giants have an “ethical responsibility” to prevent hostile states spreading a “torrent of lies” online. He said that “bare-faced lying” had become the “default mode” of the Russian state.

He added that there was a “great deal more” that could be done with internet providers to stop the exploitation of the web.

MI5’s director-general said Europe faced sustained hostile activity from states including Russia who he described as the “chief protagonist”.

In his speech, he said: “Age-old attempts at covert influence and propaganda have been supercharged in online disinformation, which can be churned out on a massive scale and at little cost. The aim is to sow doubt by flat denials of the truth, to dilute truth with falsehood, divert attention to fake stories, and do all they can to divide alliances.

“Bare-faced lying seems to be the default mode, coupled with ridicule of critics.”

The Russian state’s now well-practiced doctrine of blending media manipulation, social media disinformation and distortion with new and old forms of espionage, high levels of cyber-attacks, military force and criminal thuggery is what is meant these days by the term “hybrid threats”. Russia’s state media and representatives instigated at least 30 different so-called explanations of the Salisbury poisonings in their efforts to “mislead the world and their own people,” Mr Parker said.

One recent media survey found that two-thirds of social media output at the peak of the Salisbury attack came from Russian government-controlled accounts.

Last October, MI5’s chief said he wanted internet companies to do more to stop extremists using the “safe spaces” on the web to learn illicit techniques such as bomb-making.

This week’s keynote speech was the first time he has called on web giants to do far more. “We are committed to working with them as they look to fulfil their ethical responsibility to prevent terrorist, hostile state and criminal exploitation of internet carried services: shining a light on terrorists; taking down bomb-making instructions; warning the authorities about attempts to acquire explosives precursors.

“This matters and there is much more to do,” the director-general of MI5 said.

Standard