This scene is a philosophical example of what is "failure" or "success"... You did all you could... But did everyone else... Also, last 30 seconds of the script...
At the start of this scene, it's kind of tragic how Roy Urquart steps out of the jeep only to hear the ducks quacking off all around him. Those quacks, if heard so abundantly, may even resemble the faint laughter of the people he saw who escaped the lunatic asylum back in Holland as the operation began. One might even say in this film that Roy couldn't help but feel a foreboding sense of dread and failure just waiting for the slightest moment of inconvenience as "Market Garden" was doomed to failure.
Victor Mojica reminds me of the moment when they land at Arnhem and the escaped mentally ill patients from local asylum are laughing at them: “Do you think they know something we don’t?”
I hear a woman laughing mixed in with the ducks as Sean Connery is getting out of the jeep. I would guess that the producers added that to emphasize Gen. Urquhart's mindset at the time.
Or Urquart is nothing the contrast between the death and destruction from which he’s just come with the opulent villa that houses “Boy” Browning. Who, btw, is never shown as having ever questioned in the least the goals of Monty’s plan.
In this case 90% successful was a failure and that last bridge, the one too far was the whole point of the entire operation. Without taking the bridge at Arnhem the whole thing was a waste.
Of course it was. "90% successful" was a load of crap. Failure is still failure. It was just Monty's way of trying to downplay the fact that his plan resulted in a defeat that cost thousands of men and any chance of ending the war before 1945.
I strongly suspect that Lieutenant General Brian Horrocks who commanded 30 Corps didn't believe for one second that it would be possible to get up that one narrow highway in just two days. But, as was pointed out in this movie, no one wanted to rock the boat, so away they went!
@@michael.prescott4016 Over the previous two months, the allies watched the German Army in France get decimated and Germany's Army Group Center on the Eastern Front get shattered. In the span of just one month, Germany lost a million men, killed, wounded or captured and a large portion of their heavy equipment captured or destroyed. The allies had every right to be over confident. A lesser Army would have collapsed under the strain the Germans were under in the summer of 1944.
The airborne mafia wanted an op after so many cancelled drops, the Dutch underground had been penetrated badly by the abwehr and like you said nobody wanted to be the naysayer. Sometimes you need a pessimist in the room
also thanks to the sas in the desert and italy in fitting surplus air plane turret vickers guns in twos or fours on jeeps to devastating effect we thought we had a wonder weapon to break through any opposition.as paddy mayne said it was a terrible idea many did not survive landing in the gliders and the ones that were used were stuck on a single narrow track road slowed down and easy targets.exactly the reverse of how we used them.wed attack in the desert or itally at high speed plenty of room to maneuver dump a few hundred rounds on them in seconds then drive away at top speed spin and roar back and do the same just as theyd come out thinking we had gone.wed then vanish into the night.very like planes strafing.the surprise element and speed and a clear exit were vital.they were only jeeps remember no armour one burst from the enemy could wipe us out.to use them as they tried to at arnhem where the enemy could see you coming no cover to run to on a dreadful rd was suicide,no one asked our opinion though .the whole point is to get in and out before the enemy can man guns and get a bead on you! without night surprise speed and a way out they were just vulnerable jeeps.
The problem was two-fold. The British army did not do combined arms very well. They would let each combat arm have a go and then hand the job off to the next one. Artillery prep, then infantry assault to break the line, then armored breakthrough. Whereas the Germans had all three working together and simultaneously. Secondly, Monty was an excellent planner for set piece battles but not good at action and reaction responses. When the Germans exceeded his estimates, the plan had no room to adjust to it.
Montgomery was "Conducting supervision of another battle"(have yet to find what other battle was being fought, damned sure it didn't have anything to do with the Sheldte estuary.), Browning had to have his dutch chateau before the 82nd could take the bridge(resulting in the retention of the bridge by the German forces), even while the city and bridge were ripe for the taking at the time. But the Worst part of the whole fiasco was the chomping of the bit to use the Airborne Corp more than once before the war ended on Dec.24th as everyone had predicted it would. Which it Didn't.
Stunt is appropriate when ALL THE RADIOS DO NOT WORK FOR AN ENTIRE DIVISION!! And Monty put his 1st Airborne at the furthest bridge (Arnhem) so he could be the hero, as he was more focused on beating the Yanks into Germany!!!
hindsight is 20/20. The allied situation remained precarious. Just a few months later the Ardennes offensive demonstrated that. Ending the war in Germany swiftly was a priority so that resources could be devoted to the Pacific. Plus the political elephant in the room of avoiding the soviets capturing all of central Europe for themselves.
It was similar to the loses they were getting across the whole front without actually gaining any significant territory or strategic targets. It wasn’t a stunt it probably wouldn’t have ended the war if it was entirely successful but it would have probably led to a massive loss of German industry capacity and a significant amount of German troops and equipment taken by the allies.
The Wehrmact was a formidable foe. Clownish Hollywood movies like "Where Eagles Dare" and TV shows like "The Rat Patrol" that depict the Germans as incompetent zombies are insulting to BOTH sides. This movie, while not perfect, is an honest attempt to depict the Second World War in a battle precious few have even heard of.
James White “Where Eagles Dare” was a good movie but not based on factual events so naturally it may depict German incompetence more readily. This movie however is entirely asked on historical events that portray German ability more so. Anything else would’ve done a disservice to the events that happened
@@kkennedy3466 My gripe with Where Eagles dare is that it seems to try and be a serious film but it's just really stupid on many levels. If it in a lighter vein like Kellys Heros id be fine with it. Clint Eastwood brilliant. Music brilliant. The rest of it is a bit 'meh' for me!
@@zxbzxbzxb1 I understand your view on the film and I can't say you're incorrect on many levels. The plot was always a bit over-the-top and not entirely plausible to say nothing of two guys overrunning a castle full of Nazis singlehandedly. lol... That said I've always been a Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood fan so that was enough reason for me to like the film
It's been suggested that Bernard Montgomery was a psychopath. He was more concerned with his public image than most other things. Also, it's been argued that his successes in North Africa were more down to Ultra, the breaking of the Enigma codes. He surrounded himself with yes men while Eisenhower tried his best to have people who could advise and be advised. Piss poor planning = piss poor performance. Things went very wrong on D-Day but they were mostly down to luck and honest mistakes rather than rushed planning. Monty wanted to have his very own D-Day and with minimal planning. Even with all the risks involved in the plan, if they'd only taken the time to prepare more it could possibly have succeeded.
But even if it succeeded...the Schledt wouldn't be open to supply an Allied army in the Ruhr. That, to me, is the biggest failure of all. Monty was assuring SHAEF that he would accomplish both objectives (clearing the ports and crossing the Rhine) simultaneously, which he did not actually plan to accomplish. Even IF Market Garden had succeeded, the invasion of the Ruhr could not succeed without supply from ports closer at hand. So seizing the bridges over the Rhine was irrelevant to actual success.
Montgomery and Patton were both egotistical prima donnas, the only difference being Patton admitted it. They both won battles so I guess they earned it.
@@JohnP538 The English Establishment knew what Monty was like. At the end of the war, when all the gongs were handed out, Monty was only made a Viscount, not an Earl. A big difference in grade, which irritated him for the rest of his life.
Imagine what would happen with the northen front if Germans would have enough forces to still mount counter attack against pretty weak and tired after Market Graden allied forces?... To add proverbial "salt to injury" right after M.G. Allied have to restart attack against reinforced and well prepared for defence German forces around Antwerp which costed them another easy to avoid casualties if Monty (apparently a graduate from the "Fieldmarshal Haigh's School of warfare") would FIRST move to take over weakly defended (at that time) harbor and then start M. G... Instead... he gave Germans enough time to prepare very solid defences which neutralization took even more precious time than necessary...
Market Garden reminds me of something I have heard numerous historians say about Pakenham's plans at New Orleans. "It was bold but it was too complex." Market Garden relied on too many moving pieces that all had separate missions and the failure or even delay in one would doom the rest. As always with such plans that is exactly what happened.
@redpaw550 First of all i want to thank HenryvKeiper for his great arnhem videos and giving a sad guy a chance to speak, secondly the 1 Independent Parachute brigade (Polish) did eventually received credits. In 2006 they were awarded with the Military William Order.
I would say Market Garden was Successful in that in a way it created a spring-board for future operations for the Canadians and British to clear the scheldt estaury" of germans, but was unsuccessful in its actually primary attempt to capture Arnhem itself which as many people will say was the whole point of the operation which i would pretty much 100% agree with, perhaps if they had dropped the British and polish paratropers last once the other previous operations objectives had been taken and forced the germans to head south to deal with 30th corps, then the paras further north could then take arnhem if the RAF gave them enough aircraft to do it. I think really , even if the operation had succeeded , you still have to drive tanks, jeeps , trucks , equipment, supplies all up a single highway and im sure that even if the germans had been defeated during the operation they would still attempt to cut the highway regardless, i think in the end though from what i heard was that after the failiure, Ike instructed montgomery to help the Canadians with clearing the scheldt estaury and liberating antwerp and so on, we will never know what monty meant by 90% successful, sure it captured alot of ground in several days, maybe they could've done th operation in 2 stages? and leave arnhem bridge till last?. Wouldn't mind peoples thoughts on this?.
The Canadian perspective is that we were handed the short straw in clearing the Scheldt Estuary. Airborne operations at this point were very new, but it was a ballsy plan. I would have waited a few weeks...too many potential problems, like radios, that Panzer Division and contingency plans (it took too long to get across several of the rivers).
@@JeffLeChefski it was too complex of a plan. Too many moving pieces that all had to succeed in their mission and on schedule other wise the plan fell apart which is exactly what happened.
Saw this in the theater.........the laughing of the geese. Again they were careful not to have a Monty in this movie,....OK. It was his operation. Kinda of big hole in the movie! Great movie but.........ya know! Similar to Patton..........No IKE! Kinda of a big hole in the movie!
Urquhart was not an airborne commander, he should have questioned the logistics of the operation more but he didn't, stiff upper lip. It cost him and his division
GS Grant in the scene where he was allocated the landing ground 6km.from.Arhnem bridge he appears stunned but accepts it. In the army I guess orders are obeyed and not challenged. The route would have been "easy to transverse "if the SS Panzers had not been present.".. The view was the opposition would be " Hitler Youth and old men on bicycles. "
James Hiller At the time though, the German Army was on the run. Had 30 Corps not obeyed orders, there’s an argument to be made. That after capturing Antwerp, they could have pushed on to Arnhem regardless. As there was literally nothing except remnants to oppose them at that stage.
stuart whigham It seems that the movie promotes the view that the British rigidly stuck to orders and could not make decisions independent while the American could do things on the fly like the river crossing. I'm not sure this was always the case though.
Let's not forget that Victorian drill still present in the British Armed Forces during WW2 didn't allow to question Superior Officer's decisions... that's why even if Urquhart did have his own doubts... such strict "tradition" prevented him from voicing it out loud... contrary to Sosabowski which was free from such leash... but it cost him at the end everything... because one pompous pricky Field Marshal with the ego of the Big Ben size wasn't able to admit that he royally screwed over the entire operation...
"as you know i always thought we were going a bridge to far" In the film General Browning did not say they were pushing too many bridges, eg taking on too big a mission ,he gives the impression he was up Monty's arse and spoke with great arrogance to his generals. .He belittled the intelligence coming out of Arnhem,and made the impression he did not want to be told other wise. The result good men were lost,due to the stiff upper lip clan.Von Rundstedt on the other hand acted in a practical way i think he understood what the allies could get up to and positioned his best troops in a strategic location.
A great movie but not much use for historical reference, that goes for any war movie. They are there to provide action and entertainment, these operations are far to complex. Books are far more informative.
Donald Russell mens lives ment nothing to browning, typical general, like Stephen frys character in blackadder goes forth, and yes he new market garden was doomed from the start, barstard
There has been debate if he in fact said "A bridge Too far" to Monty. I think like everyone else the desire to "end the war by Christmas" had blinded SHAEF.
I've worked with managers, team leads, etc. like Browning before. If the project succeeds, he ensures that his name is front and center for the accolades. If it fails, he already knows who he can throw under the bus.
It was Monty's plan. But no one had the logic to tell him. You plan to go up a two lane road, and get to Arnhem in two days and not expect possible delays?
According to a para witness Urquhart punched browning Because of a derogatory remark made about british forces Connery did like slapping So bogarde might have copped it If the script allowed it!
Monty was an ass and filled with jealousy of Patton. This is why he had to have his "moment of glory", which turned out to be a complete failure on all fronts. One of the worst decisions ever made by the top British brass. A Bridge too Far, my butt. This was doomed from the get-go.
Nonsense. Montgomery outranked Patton after Sicily and had no reason to care what he did. In fact, from 1 August 1944 to 1 September 1944, Patton reported to Montgomery, the former as 3rd Army commander, the latter as overall ground forces commander in Normandy. Eisenhower took over on the 1st of September. And then approved Market-Garden.
@@HandGrenadeDivision The emnity between Patton and Montgomery is basically a matter of record at this point. But that's beside the point. Montgomery was never an exceptional field commander. He tried to fight WW2 using WW1 methods. In every major operation he commanded, he committed frontal assaults behind massed artillery barrages. If it werent for massive logistical advantages, Monty never wins a battle. He wasted hundreds of tanks and thousands of men unnecessarily multiple times in both Market Garden and Goodwood. He was vain, incompetent, and if he had been an American he would have been sent home in disgrace after MG.
That was just a myth created by the American Media to create publicity. Monty and Patton were excellent friends. Monty even defended Patton's legacy after he died and was one of the few British Commanders who did so. Monty was arrogant yes, but he wasn't jealous of Patton. Monty was an excellent logistical commander and Patton was an aggressive commander. Its why during the summer of 1944. He made sure Patton was supplied and Patton took most of southern France. They worked well as a team. The problem was Market Garden was too logistical dependent. If 1 thing failed the plan was doomed it was overcomplicated
This scene is a philosophical example of what is "failure" or "success"...
You did all you could...
But did everyone else...
Also, last 30 seconds of the script...
At the start of this scene, it's kind of tragic how Roy Urquart steps out of the jeep only to hear the ducks quacking off all around him. Those quacks, if heard so abundantly, may even resemble the faint laughter of the people he saw who escaped the lunatic asylum back in Holland as the operation began.
One might even say in this film that Roy couldn't help but feel a foreboding sense of dread and failure just waiting for the slightest moment of inconvenience as "Market Garden" was doomed to failure.
Victor Mojica reminds me of the moment when they land at Arnhem and the escaped mentally ill patients from local asylum are laughing at them:
“Do you think they know something we don’t?”
I hear a woman laughing mixed in with the ducks as Sean Connery is getting out of the jeep. I would guess that the producers added that to emphasize Gen. Urquhart's mindset at the time.
Victor Mojica " Do these people know something we don't "
well said exactly my thought.
Or Urquart is nothing the contrast between the death and destruction from which he’s just come with the opulent villa that houses “Boy” Browning. Who, btw, is never shown as having ever questioned in the least the goals of Monty’s plan.
In this case 90% successful was a failure and that last bridge, the one too far was the whole point of the entire operation. Without taking the bridge at Arnhem the whole thing was a waste.
Of course it was. "90% successful" was a load of crap. Failure is still failure. It was just Monty's way of trying to downplay the fact that his plan resulted in a defeat that cost thousands of men and any chance of ending the war before 1945.
@@Hibernicus1968 I think they wanted the war to end before the soviet advanced too far
which why he would been replace if Fen. Alexander didn't die of illiness. Think point was touch on in Ike.
Rest in Peace Sir Sean. You can finally get some sleep after escaping Arnhem
one of my favorite war movies of all time
I strongly suspect that Lieutenant General Brian Horrocks who commanded 30 Corps didn't believe for one second that it would be possible to get up that one narrow highway in just two days. But, as was pointed out in this movie, no one wanted to rock the boat, so away they went!
overconfidence, the enemy gets a vote in planning.
@@michael.prescott4016 Over the previous two months, the allies watched the German Army in France get decimated and Germany's Army Group Center on the Eastern Front get shattered. In the span of just one month, Germany lost a million men, killed, wounded or captured and a large portion of their heavy equipment captured or destroyed. The allies had every right to be over confident. A lesser Army would have collapsed under the strain the Germans were under in the summer of 1944.
The airborne mafia wanted an op after so many cancelled drops, the Dutch underground had been penetrated badly by the abwehr and like you said nobody wanted to be the naysayer. Sometimes you need a pessimist in the room
also thanks to the sas in the desert and italy in fitting surplus air plane turret vickers guns in twos or fours on jeeps to devastating effect we thought we had a wonder weapon to break through any opposition.as paddy mayne said it was a terrible idea many did not survive landing in the gliders and the ones that were used were stuck on a single narrow track road slowed down and easy targets.exactly the reverse of how we used them.wed attack in the desert or itally at high speed plenty of room to maneuver dump a few hundred rounds on them in seconds then drive away at top speed spin and roar back and do the same just as theyd come out thinking we had gone.wed then vanish into the night.very like planes strafing.the surprise element and speed and a clear exit were vital.they were only jeeps remember no armour one burst from the enemy could wipe us out.to use them as they tried to at arnhem where the enemy could see you coming no cover to run to on a dreadful rd was suicide,no one asked our opinion though .the whole point is to get in and out before the enemy can man guns and get a bead on you! without night surprise speed and a way out they were just vulnerable jeeps.
The problem was two-fold.
The British army did not do combined arms very well. They would let each combat arm have a go and then hand the job off to the next one. Artillery prep, then infantry assault to break the line, then armored breakthrough. Whereas the Germans had all three working together and simultaneously.
Secondly, Monty was an excellent planner for set piece battles but not good at action and reaction responses. When the Germans exceeded his estimates, the plan had no room to adjust to it.
Montgomery was "Conducting supervision of another battle"(have yet to find what other battle was being fought, damned sure it didn't have anything to do with the Sheldte estuary.), Browning had to have his dutch chateau before the 82nd could take the bridge(resulting in the retention of the bridge by the German forces), even while the city and bridge were ripe for the taking at the time. But the Worst part of the whole fiasco was the chomping of the bit to use the Airborne Corp more than once before the war ended on Dec.24th as everyone had predicted it would. Which it Didn't.
"90% of Market Garden it was a success"-Monty. Yeah,right! In his dream!! 😂😂😂
Like being 90% pregnant
Like starting on the one-yard line and moving the ball 90 yards.
RIP Sean.
In my opinion operation Market Garden should never have gone forward. It was an unnecessary waist of human lives.
Imagine losing 80 percent of your men in some unnecessary risky stunt while you're WINNING THE WAR and the outcome is only a matter of time.
It wasn’t ‘some unnecessary risky stunt’. It was a very daring operation that when a succes would’ve had a massive speeding up the progress effect.
Stunt is appropriate when ALL THE RADIOS DO NOT WORK FOR AN ENTIRE DIVISION!!
And Monty put his 1st Airborne at the furthest bridge (Arnhem) so he could be the hero, as he was more focused on beating the Yanks into Germany!!!
hindsight is 20/20. The allied situation remained precarious. Just a few months later the Ardennes offensive demonstrated that. Ending the war in Germany swiftly was a priority so that resources could be devoted to the Pacific. Plus the political elephant in the room of avoiding the soviets capturing all of central Europe for themselves.
It was similar to the loses they were getting across the whole front without actually gaining any significant territory or strategic targets. It wasn’t a stunt it probably wouldn’t have ended the war if it was entirely successful but it would have probably led to a massive loss of German industry capacity and a significant amount of German troops and equipment taken by the allies.
Senior British army "leadership" at its finest. As usual!
the scene captures the sad folly of a the whole enterprise...10000 enters less that 2000 came out. 8000 men of what I can never understand ?
The Wehrmact was a formidable foe. Clownish Hollywood movies like "Where Eagles Dare" and TV shows like "The Rat Patrol" that depict the Germans as incompetent zombies are insulting to BOTH sides. This movie, while not perfect, is an honest attempt to depict the Second World War in a battle precious few have even heard of.
James White “Where Eagles Dare” was a good movie but not based on factual events so naturally it may depict German incompetence more readily. This movie however is entirely asked on historical events that portray German ability more so. Anything else would’ve done a disservice to the events that happened
@@kkennedy3466 My gripe with Where Eagles dare is that it seems to try and be a serious film but it's just really stupid on many levels. If it in a lighter vein like Kellys Heros id be fine with it. Clint Eastwood brilliant. Music brilliant. The rest of it is a bit 'meh' for me!
@@zxbzxbzxb1 I understand your view on the film and I can't say you're incorrect on many levels. The plot was always a bit over-the-top and not entirely plausible to say nothing of two guys overrunning a castle full of Nazis singlehandedly. lol...
That said I've always been a Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood fan so that was enough reason for me to like the film
Hollywood sells dreams and fantasies to the dumbed-down masses. If anything good comes out of it, it's a miracle.
Well just look at how dumbed down the germans are in newer war movies like Saving Private Ryan or that attrocity Fury...
AWESOME ending scene!!!
I love reading the comments of keyboard generals.
It's been suggested that Bernard Montgomery was a psychopath. He was more concerned with his public image than most other things. Also, it's been argued that his successes in North Africa were more down to Ultra, the breaking of the Enigma codes. He surrounded himself with yes men while Eisenhower tried his best to have people who could advise and be advised. Piss poor planning = piss poor performance. Things went very wrong on D-Day but they were mostly down to luck and honest mistakes rather than rushed planning. Monty wanted to have his very own D-Day and with minimal planning. Even with all the risks involved in the plan, if they'd only taken the time to prepare more it could possibly have succeeded.
But even if it succeeded...the Schledt wouldn't be open to supply an Allied army in the Ruhr.
That, to me, is the biggest failure of all. Monty was assuring SHAEF that he would accomplish both objectives (clearing the ports and crossing the Rhine) simultaneously, which he did not actually plan to accomplish.
Even IF Market Garden had succeeded, the invasion of the Ruhr could not succeed without supply from ports closer at hand. So seizing the bridges over the Rhine was irrelevant to actual success.
Montgomery and Patton were both egotistical prima donnas, the only difference being Patton admitted it. They both won battles so I guess they earned it.
@@JohnP538 The English Establishment knew what Monty was like. At the end of the war, when all the gongs were handed out, Monty was only made a Viscount, not an Earl. A big difference in grade, which irritated him for the rest of his life.
Imagine what would happen with the northen front if Germans would have enough forces to still mount counter attack against pretty weak and tired after Market Graden allied forces?...
To add proverbial "salt to injury" right after M.G. Allied have to restart attack against reinforced and well prepared for defence German forces around Antwerp which costed them another easy to avoid casualties if Monty (apparently a graduate from the "Fieldmarshal Haigh's School of warfare") would FIRST move to take over weakly defended (at that time) harbor and then start M. G...
Instead... he gave Germans enough time to prepare very solid defences which neutralization took even more precious time than necessary...
Market Garden reminds me of something I have heard numerous historians say about Pakenham's plans at New Orleans. "It was bold but it was too complex." Market Garden relied on too many moving pieces that all had separate missions and the failure or even delay in one would doom the rest. As always with such plans that is exactly what happened.
I want to hear Abide With Me by the last of the British Paras at Arnhem waiting to be captured. Cue the man-tears
@redpaw550 First of all i want to thank HenryvKeiper for his great arnhem videos and giving a sad guy a chance to speak, secondly the 1 Independent Parachute brigade (Polish) did eventually received credits. In 2006 they were awarded with the Military William Order.
Gee, it only took 62 years, how many were alive to hear it?
Sean Connery was excellent in this role.
thats a good point in foreshadowng...
I would say Market Garden was Successful in that in a way it created a spring-board for future operations for the Canadians and British to clear the scheldt estaury" of germans, but was unsuccessful in its actually primary attempt to capture Arnhem itself which as many people will say was the whole point of the operation which i would pretty much 100% agree with, perhaps if they had dropped the British and polish paratropers last once the other previous operations objectives had been taken and forced the germans to head south to deal with 30th corps, then the paras further north could then take arnhem if the RAF gave them enough aircraft to do it.
I think really , even if the operation had succeeded , you still have to drive tanks, jeeps , trucks , equipment, supplies all up a single highway and im sure that even if the germans had been defeated during the operation they would still attempt to cut the highway regardless, i think in the end though from what i heard was that after the failiure, Ike instructed montgomery to help the Canadians with clearing the scheldt estaury and liberating antwerp and so on, we will never know what monty meant by 90% successful, sure it captured alot of ground in several days, maybe they could've done th operation in 2 stages? and leave arnhem bridge till last?.
Wouldn't mind peoples thoughts on this?.
The Canadian perspective is that we were handed the short straw in clearing the Scheldt Estuary. Airborne operations at this point were very new, but it was a ballsy plan. I would have waited a few weeks...too many potential problems, like radios, that Panzer Division and contingency plans (it took too long to get across several of the rivers).
@@JeffLeChefski it was too complex of a plan. Too many moving pieces that all had to succeed in their mission and on schedule other wise the plan fell apart which is exactly what happened.
20/20 hindsight
I believe the Germans thought it was successful up to a point . Especially " protecting " Antwerp
Saw this in the theater.........the laughing of the geese. Again they were careful not to have a Monty in this movie,....OK. It was his operation. Kinda of big hole in the movie! Great movie but.........ya know! Similar to Patton..........No IKE! Kinda of a big hole in the movie!
I dont think they should mess with the Classics they ruined the Italian Job by remaking that
Too true.
Urquhart was not an airborne commander, he should have questioned the logistics of the operation more but he didn't, stiff upper lip. It cost him and his division
GS Grant in the scene where he was allocated the landing ground 6km.from.Arhnem bridge he appears stunned but accepts it. In the army I guess orders are obeyed and not challenged. The route would have been "easy to transverse "if the SS Panzers had not been present.".. The view was the opposition would be " Hitler Youth and old men on bicycles. "
James Hiller At the time though, the German Army was on the run. Had 30 Corps not obeyed orders, there’s an argument to be made. That after capturing Antwerp, they could have pushed on to Arnhem regardless. As there was literally nothing except remnants to oppose them at that stage.
stuart whigham It seems that the movie promotes the view that the British rigidly stuck to orders and could not make decisions independent while the American could do things on the fly like the river crossing. I'm not sure this was always the case though.
Let's not forget that Victorian drill still present in the British Armed Forces during WW2 didn't allow to question Superior Officer's decisions... that's why even if Urquhart did have his own doubts... such strict "tradition" prevented him from voicing it out loud... contrary to Sosabowski which was free from such leash... but it cost him at the end everything... because one pompous pricky Field Marshal with the ego of the Big Ben size wasn't able to admit that he royally screwed over the entire operation...
@redpaw550 With: "A sad little guy i" ment myself.
"as you know i always thought we were going a bridge to far"
In the film General Browning did not say they were pushing too many bridges, eg taking on too big a mission ,he gives the impression he was up Monty's arse and spoke with great arrogance to his generals. .He belittled the intelligence coming out of Arnhem,and made the impression he did not want to be told other wise. The result good men were lost,due to the stiff upper lip clan.Von Rundstedt on the other hand acted in a practical way i think he understood what the allies could get up to and positioned his best troops in a strategic location.
Did our allied troops hold onto Nijmegen& its bridge after the retreat,or?
I believe so
A great movie but not much use for historical reference, that goes for any war movie. They are there to provide action and entertainment, these operations are far to complex. Books are far more informative.
The best of Britian
We couldnt do this now...... Have you seen the younger generation today. Cowards, through and through.
No millario, it's called acting....
Browning , knew it was going to fail?
Donald Russell mens lives ment nothing to browning, typical general, like Stephen frys character in blackadder goes forth, and yes he new market garden was doomed from the start, barstard
There has been debate if he in fact said "A bridge Too far" to Monty. I think like everyone else the desire to "end the war by Christmas" had blinded SHAEF.
I've worked with managers, team leads, etc. like Browning before. If the project succeeds, he ensures that his name is front and center for the accolades. If it fails, he already knows who he can throw under the bus.
your plan sucked, General
It was Monty's plan. But no one had the logic to tell him. You plan to go up a two lane road, and get to Arnhem in two days and not expect possible delays?
Ike, regretted letting him do it.
@@michael.prescott4016 would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the two meet years again after the war.
According to a para witness
Urquhart punched browning
Because of a derogatory remark made about british forces
Connery did like slapping
So bogarde might have copped it
If the script allowed it!
Monty was an ass and filled with jealousy of Patton. This is why he had to have his "moment of glory", which turned out to be a complete failure on all fronts. One of the worst decisions ever made by the top British brass. A Bridge too Far, my butt. This was doomed from the get-go.
Nonsense. Montgomery outranked Patton after Sicily and had no reason to care what he did. In fact, from 1 August 1944 to 1 September 1944, Patton reported to Montgomery, the former as 3rd Army commander, the latter as overall ground forces commander in Normandy. Eisenhower took over on the 1st of September. And then approved Market-Garden.
@@HandGrenadeDivision The emnity between Patton and Montgomery is basically a matter of record at this point.
But that's beside the point.
Montgomery was never an exceptional field commander. He tried to fight WW2 using WW1 methods. In every major operation he commanded, he committed frontal assaults behind massed artillery barrages.
If it werent for massive logistical advantages, Monty never wins a battle. He wasted hundreds of tanks and thousands of men unnecessarily multiple times in both Market Garden and Goodwood.
He was vain, incompetent, and if he had been an American he would have been sent home in disgrace after MG.
That was just a myth created by the American Media to create publicity. Monty and Patton were excellent friends. Monty even defended Patton's legacy after he died and was one of the few British Commanders who did so. Monty was arrogant yes, but he wasn't jealous of Patton. Monty was an excellent logistical commander and Patton was an aggressive commander. Its why during the summer of 1944. He made sure Patton was supplied and Patton took most of southern France. They worked well as a team. The problem was Market Garden was too logistical dependent. If 1 thing failed the plan was doomed it was overcomplicated