Operation Varsity Plunder

 

“The situation in the West has entered an extraordinarily critical, ostensibly almost deadly, phase”.

Joseph Goebbels, March 24th, 1945

March 23rd, 2025. Eighty years ago today, on March 23rd, 1945, not far from where I write these words, Operation Varsity Plunder got underway.  Operation Varsity, the airborne component, involved 16,000 British, American and Canadian airborne forces and some 2000 aircraft, the largest single airborne operation ever conducted and twice the size of the D-Day ‘drop’, as well as significantly bigger than Operation Market Garden

The main ground and riverine effort was led by the British 21st Army Group, supported by American and Canadian forces and commanded by much maligned Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery.  The mission was to cross the Rhine in strength and then break into Northern Germany and encircle the Ruhr industrial area.

Operation Varsity involved two divisions of the US XVIII Airborne Corps tasked with disrupting German defences.  The British 6th Airborne Division, including the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion, had the critical task of opening the way for the riverine and ground assault by capturing vital villages and bridges over the River Ijssel. Despite significant losses all the objectives were seized, not least because many lessons had been learnt from the failed Operation Market Garden in September 1944.

On March 23rd, Montgomery had some 30 divisions under his command facing 10 German divisions the strength of which were depleted due to losses suffered elsewhere. German defences were centred around the still powerful 1st Parachute Army.  British Intelligence also estimated that on the eve of battle Wehrmacht forces fielded 114 heavy and 712 light anti-aircraft guns. To counter this threat RAF Bomber Command, RAF 2nd Tactical Air Force, and the US Army Air Force undertook a week of attacks prior to the crossing, structured so as not to reveal the exact location of the planned crossing of the Rhine.  

Operation Plunder began at 2100 hours on March 23rd, and by 0300 on the morning of March 24th British and American forces had established several bridgeheads on the eastern bank of the Rhine.  The three spearhead Allied formations were British XII Corps, British XXX Corps and US XVI Corps, whilst the famed British 79th Armoured Division deployed specially adapted amphibious tanks (Hobart’s Funnies) to reinforce the crossings.

XXX Corps led the assault landing between Rees and Wesel with the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division, the Black Watch, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and 1st Commando Brigade, Royal Marines, together with the 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division.  In many ways, Plunder was a Scottish feat of arms because several English divisions (43rd Wessex Division, Guards Armoured Division, 50th Northumbrian Division, the East Yorks, Green Howards etc, and the Polish Division) had defeated Bittrich’s 2nd Panzer Division during the hard-fought Battle of the Nijmegen Salient and Operation Pheasant in the wake of Operation Market Garden.

By March 27th, Allied forces had secured all the main objectives and Generaloberst Johannes Blaskowitz took the decision to retreat beyond the Dortmund-Ems Canal to the Teutoberg Forest.  On March 25th, Winston Churchill accompanied by Montgomery, Field Marshal Alan Brooke and US General William H. Simpson, strode onto the eastern bank of the Rhine from a landing craft.  For the British this was the high point of the campaign in North-West Europe with the way to Hamburg, Kiel and the Ruhrgebeit effectively open. The next day Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D, Eisenhower, held a lunch for Churchill. It was Eisenhower who had given Montgomery the task of crossing the Rhine in strength, against the wishes of many senior American officers, most notably Patton.

The victory did not come without cost. Operation Varsity cost the Allies 2700 killed with 72 aircraft lost, whilst the number of Germans killed during Varsity Plunder are unknown but included many civilians.  Some 3500 German troops were captured during Varsity.   Operation Plunder saw some 4000 British and Canadians killed, and some 2800 Americans killed but by D plus 7 30,000 German troops had been captured.

This afternoon I will drive to the old railway bridge over the Rhine at Wesel which was blown up by the Wehrmacht in March 1945 to pay my respects. As the wheel of European history turns again, I will reflect on those who fought and died for freedom and those now again charged with defending it – Britons, Canadians, Germans, Poles and Americans alike.

Operation Varsity Plunder. Lest we forget, Leaders!

Julian Lindley-French  

 

Making Europe Great (Power) Again: Defence or Pretence?

 

(Note of The Alphen Group virtual conference 060325)

President Trump has not caused a temporary crisis in transatlantic relations, but a permanent Atlantic Zeitenwende (Atlantic sea-change).  Can a deal be done to save that relationship and, of course, NATO. Europeans must move to Trump-proof their defence without encouraging him to double down on his threats, and even though he is “burning through a lot of goodwill”.  That was both the challenge and consensus of this latest TAG Virtual Conference.

Given that challenge, Europe's future defence must have three purposes: to demonstrate greater European strategic responsibility; to maintain credible defence and deterrence in and around Europe should the US become embroiled in an Indo-Pacific War; and to act as insurance should President Trump withdraw US forces from Europe.

Europeans also need to move quickly. The risk Trump poses to NATO is not so much the US quitting the Alliance but blocking action therein.  Europeans must collectively move to ensure they can still act if at some point the US prevents their use of NATO’s integrated command structure.  A strategic audit of European military forces and civilian assets must now be undertaken now to establish a new European defence concept, particularly strategic enablers (satellite communications, imagery, intelligence sharing etc). A bespoke reinforced European future force that is credible in its deterrence and defence role given the threats would take at least 8-10 years.  In the worst case, there could be a “window of danger” between 2030 and 2035, particularly for Allies on NATO’s eastern and northern flanks.  Any such force would not only take a very significant increase in defence investment, but the effective mobilisation of industry, technology and parts of society akin to the British Shadow Factory Plan of 1935.

Europeans must also seek an accommodation with Trump. Such is the poor state of Europe’s armed forces that Europeans will continue to be dependent on the Americans through NATO for defence and deterrence at least until 2035. This reality makes the provision of a high-end European inter-position force between Russian and Ukrainian forces AND the maintenance of a credible Alliance defence and deterrence posture “a fantasy”. “It is not a feasible course of action and cannot be done”. There are only a maximum of 20-30 deployable warfighting brigades in European armies. The NATO Force Model envisages up to 50 such brigades whilst given force rotation at least 80 brigades would be needed, plus supporting air power which “cannot be done”.

Europeans could help Ukraine by supporting Kyiv’s “ability to deter Russia” going forward. The Ukrainians can also offer Europeans a host of lessons about innovative and affordable battlefield solutions, most notably drone technology.  

A European extended nuclear deterrent faces profound political and operational challenges, not least the effective abandonment by Europeans of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the very rules-based order they seek to defend. Whilst the British like to proclaim the operational independence of their deterrent the system is wholly reliant on the Americans.  The French have greater independence but only the air component would be credible at the European theatre level and for all the rhetoric Paris remains “very ambivalent” about undertaking such a role.  One option would be to adapt existing dual capable European strike aircraft to carry nuclear-tipped Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles. To do that the run-down British Atomic Weapons Establishment must be rebuilt. I

Who is going to shape the new European security order? Germany is the critical change factor. The adversarial language of Vice-President Vance at the Munich Security Conference was heard by Chancellor-in-Waiting Friedrich Merz. However, Berlin must have the full support of London and Paris given the three countries together represent 70% of all European defence investment.

How is such an order to be built?  SACEUR’s Defence Plan remains a sound basis for reinforcing both the European pillar of NATO and building European strategic autonomy. 

Who is going to pay for it?  A rebalancing of social security with national security will be needed. Defence is no longer “discretionary expenditure”. A new “financial arsenal of democracy” is needed.  It is time for the financial and banking sector to repay the European taxpayer for the bail outs they received during the 2008-10 banking crisis. This could be done through the proposed Defence, Security and Resilience Bank – a kind of 21^st century Lend-Lease Deal.

What European Future Force? Before the transatlantic relationship is prematurely laid to rest Europeans must first seek a new burden sharing accommodation with the Americans.  The January 2025 TAG Atlantic Charter 2025: A New NATO Deal for America https://thealphengroup.com/2025/01/12/atlantic-charter-2025-a-new-nato-deal-for-america/ lays out Europe’s force goals: 4 fully enabled, fully ready mobile warfighting corps (each 30,000 troops minimum), 2 ‘shield’ corps based in Poland and Romania, 3 fully enabled, fully ready Composite Air Strike Forces (CASF) (both aircraft and missiles), and 2  fully enabled, fully ready Non-US Standing Fleets.  In return, the US would maintain in Europe IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES a fully enabled, fully ready warfighting corps (V Corps), a Composite Air Strike Force and the US 6^th Fleet.

Julian Lindley-French

Trump's NATO?

 

What would Trump-friendly NATO look like? In January, The Alphen Group published Atlantic Charter 2025: A New NATO Deal for America in which we laid out a clear plan written by NATO planners. Under the TAG plan the Europe Future Force would build on NATO’s current Force Model particularly the Allied Reaction Force to generate 4 fully enabled, fully ready mobile warfighting corps (30,000 troops minimum), 2 ‘shield’ corps based in Poland and Romania, 3 fully enabled, fully ready Composite Air Strike Forces (CASF) (both aircraft and missiles), and 2  fully enabled, fully ready Non-US Standing Fleets.  In return, the US would maintain in Europe IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES a fully enabled, fully ready warfighting corps (V Corps), a Composite Air Strike Force and the US 6^th Fleet.

For details read Atlantic Charter 2025: A New NATO Deal for America at https://thealphengroup.com/2025/01/12/atlantic-charter-2025-a-new-nato-deal-for-america/

Be Careful, Mr President!

 

Never has so much been owed to so many by so many?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill on another occasion

Dear President Trump,

Be careful! There is a fine line between rightly getting Europeans to do more for their own defence and destroying the transatlantic relationship. The latter would be the greatest act of self-harm since Americans were expelled from the British Empire for uppity behaviour (I jest).  For all our peskiness the United States needs allies more not less today than at any time since 1945.  The very argument you are making about burden-sharing cuts both ways. Those burdens feel heavier precisely because the US needs capable allies and partners ever more for the realisation of America’s own critical interests. Americans have earned the right to capable allies and are entirely correct that European military weakness risks making America weaker due to overstretch thus imposed on US forces.

Several points

The very fact that in 2025 560 million Europeans are dependent on 340 million Americans for their defence against 140 Russians is frankly pathetic. It is not helped by 80 million Germans who demand the right to a seemingly eternal Pilgrimage to Redemption whilst happy to sell arms to all and sundry.  I once wrote in the International Herald Tribune that for 50 years Americans, Britons and others told the Germans they could not do very much because of World War Two. For the past 10 years the Germans have told the rest of us they cannot do very much because of World War Two. Twenty years later Berlin is still telling us they cannot do very much because of World War Two. Germany is the deep hole in the defence of Europe and Berlin’s free riding an autobahn to Nemesis. It is not good enough, Germany.

With respect, sir, you seem to forget that one of the reasons so many European states are deeply in debt is because American banks swindled European banks. By wrapping toxic sub-prime loans within complex inter-bank arrangements, you Americans almost destroyed the Western financial system. European governments had to bail out both European AND American banks with taxpayer’s money. Where do you think that money came from?  Defence budgets of course.

In a blatant case of responsibility without either power or authority a ‘defence summit’ of European heads of state and government took place in London.  The aim was to create a ‘coalition of the willing’ to ‘lead’ peace enforcement (not peacekeeping) when some kind of ceasefire emerges from the carnage on Europe’s eastern flank.   The reality is that no such force could be credible without a very strong, visible and present US military reserve, far more than a guarantee. Given the likely length of any demilitarized zone and the nature and capability of the parties to the conflict any such European force would collapse like a house of cards without real American support. As an aside, to not invite the leaders of the Baltic States to the London meeting was the equivalent of Western Europeans ordering takeaway for the Russians!

NATO. It is true that you Americans bear too much of the cost of the Alliance. Still, it is a fool’s errand to simply compare either the US defence budget or the cost of US forces in Europe.  First, the bulk of EUCOM forces are in Europe in pursuit of US interests. It is no coincidence your AFRICOM is also based in Europe. Imagine, Sir, if Europeans responded by ordering American forces our of Europe. Washington would find American security and defence policy far harder to realise. Far from paying for 67% of NATO the real figure is closer to 25% although Americans are right to point out that US forces available to the defence of Europe should also be counted.

The Oscars took place last night but that is no reason to believe Hollywood History.  Americans tend to write Allies out of history and then complain too much of the burden falls on America. Eighty years ago, this month Operation Varsity Plunder took place.  Forget The Bridge at Remagen (a strategic dead-end) or Patton’s absurd coup de theatre (Patton’s ego) the true crossing of the Rhine in strength began at 2100 hours March 23, 1945, under the command of Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery and the 2nd British Army, 21 Army Group. Operation Varsity was the airborne assault led by the British 6^th Airborne Division and the 1^st Canadian Parachute Battalion alongside the US XVII Airborne Corps. The drop was well over twice the size of the D-Day ‘drop’ and far bigger than the Market Garden operation. Operation Plunder saw the crossing of the Rhine at Wesel and the successful exploitation of the bridgehead thereafter. Plunder was led by the British XII Corps and XXX Corps, as well as the US XVI Corps. It also included the 1^st Commando Brigade, Royal Marines as part of the spearhead. My point is that Europeans have done ‘heavy lifting’ for many years but rarely been given any credit for it, not least by ‘not invented here’ American historians. American leadership in Afghanistan and Iraq did little to impress Allies. You need to up your game if we Europeans are still to follow you Americans.  Indeed, I wrote a couple of reports to that effect. 

Stronger together

In conclusion, Mr President, be careful what you wish for, which appears to be the maintenance of American control over ever greater European military capability and capacity. Forget it! The more capable Europeans become the more say they will demand over US campaigns and operations.  Still, that is a bridge yet to be crossed. A Bridge Too Far?

Sir, I am no shrinking European strategic wallflower. Some would say I have been at the very forefront of efforts to get Europeans to get their defence strategic act together. If you read my latest book with General Lord Richards – The Retreat from Strategy (which is brilliant and very reasonably-priced) you will see what I mean. We do not pull our punches.

Still, as a friend of America let me be Yorkshire blunt: Americans will not Make America Great Again by Making America Alone Again!

Respectfully,

Julian Lindley-French