In the Summer of 1944, the western Allies had a big problem. Having broken out from Normandy, Allied Supreme Commander General Eisenhower wanted to advance on Germany on a broad front. But logistical issues meant that the Allies couldn’t supply multiple army Groups with the fuel, food and ammunition they needed simultaneously. However, one British general thought that he had the solution.
Field Marshal Montgomery believed that the Allies should employ one bold stroke to shorten the war. His plan, Operation Market Garden, would put the Allies across the Rhine on Germany’s frontier in a few days and possibly end the war by Christmas 1944.
The battle would become one of the most controversial episodes of the Second World War, featuring daring assaults, strategic blunders and heroic defences. A battle which would come so close to success, before falling at the final hurdle. In this episode of IWM Stories, curator Sean Rehling examines Operation Market Garden.
Tactics of the Normandy Campaign: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/tactics-and-the-cost-of-victory-in-normandy
The story of Operation Market Garden in photos: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-story-of-operation-market-garden-in-photos
See inside Field Marshall Montgomery caravans: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/montys-caravans-a-field-marshals-home-from-home
Licence the clips used in this film: https://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/mycollections/index/_Vma2J84Q
For information about licensing HD clips please email [email protected]
source
Very simple…..Montgomery. ‘Nuff said.
The idea, was brilliant the point is that in practice there was not sufficient planning involved, they left many things by chance first they had to take all three bridges in a certain period of time without leaving any time gap as a precaution just in case if something could go wrong then the deployment of the forces was not as sufficient as it should be, as I understand, some of the forces were delayed in finding themselves at the certain area at a certain time due to lack of sources they had to be transported in order to be engaged to take part in the whole of the operation then the drop Zones were actually far away from the objectives again that was little intelligence on the area as long as where German forces were stationed and then no plan b or reserves units, all means of transportation available in order to strengthen any weak points if something was not done as planned the point is as it appears all forces were quite brave they done their best yet for another time the generals were found needed in planning forseeing and justifying the position, their office position in the army just as in ww1 deployment in the trenches. I believe it's the same idea as in Korea, landing of forces behind enemy lines, D-Day, or the blitz creek of ww2 Germany that nobody expected such a move yet the use of airborne troops as an alternative made things much more difficult than a clear straightforward landing on the beaches. In a word sloppiness
operation market garden failed because monty concepted it, planned it and simply underestimated the wehrmacht resistance in the objective area. .he loves to talked to the media how he gonna whacked the enemy but lacks the brilliance and decisiveness of patton in winning battles. . . . .in june 6, 1944 the allies landed on the beaches of normandy without patton and his 3rd. .monty was the overall allied ground commander. .yet his horizontal attacks were so sluggished and ineffective that when patton officially entered the fray on aug 1, 1944 the allies was 45 days behind schedule. .thanks to monty and bradley's static campaign. . . .patton's relentless surgical attacks made gen kluge commander of german forces west to admit that his left flanks collapsed. .patton continued to march unimpeded that he was the first to capture the german city of trier, the first to crossed the rhine and stopped hitler's last gamble, the battle of the bulge, to the dismay and envy of monty and even bradley his group commander. . . over all, achievements wise, monty merely played a second fiddle to patton in european campaign of ww2. .and that eisenhower contribution to allies victory was his monalisa like smile. .
Love how the British are always trying to finish things by Christmas
The entire operation was spoiled by the failure of the American General to take the bridge at Nijimegen in timely order and for no other reason. Quit blaming Montgomery.
They forgot the rocket jumper and shovel bruh..
The whole thing was a misbegotten tragic waste of brave men. Supplies were already being trucked over 300M from Normandy to the Antwerp area and Arnhem was another 95+ miles beyond that. Even if Arnhem bridge had fallen, there were insufficient supplies to drive into Germany. The only logical move after the capture of Antwerp (whose harbor was completely intact), was to clear the Scheldt estuary and open a shorter and more robust supply line. This wasn't done for almost two months. Eisenhower and Montgomery screwed the pooch on this.
Montgomery was an idiot.
I disagree that Market Garden can count as a "failed" operation.
Just about all the ground taken was subsequently held, and the holdings were then developed extensively both East and West.
What never occurred was the subsequent planned development across the Rhine – and the fact it took the Allies months to eventually progress that plan casts doubt on whether capturing the bridge at Arnhem would have made much difference.
Either way, Market Garden achieved massive gain of territory.
A "failed" operation would be, say, Rommel's assault known as the 1st Battle of El Alamein, or the Japanese attempt to take Port Moresby via Kokoda.
The question of whether the forces spent on Market Garden could have achieved a better result elsewhere is worth exploring – The Germans were able to re-deploy a significant amount of troops out of Holland as a result of Market-Garden's focus….
I highly recommend a visit to the Airborne museum out at Oosterbeek as well as the smaller memorial closer to John Frost Bridge. Extremely well presented and moving.
Not really. The operation failed because only white people were leading the war to make the world white again.
They captured every bridge except the last one so I regard the operation as partial success. It was imperative to isolate the V2 launching pads in the vicinity of Antwerp causing terror in London at that period in the war. Hitler did not achieve his plan to fire 20,000 V2's at London. I take my hat off to all the allies in all theatres of war which defeating this incredible evil and believe me there are still a considerable number of very nasty Germans who rue the day they lost the war.
The 82 american division made a poor job. The failed to capture Nimejen bridge. Had they succeed the XX Corps will have arrived in time to save the operation. There were other mistakes but this was the main one.
If you enjoyed this watch the excellent movie A Bridge to Far. It's pretty accurate and a great watch filled with tons of stars.
If you note the scene from the PATTON film wherein Patton is playing traffic cop to his lines of armor, then gets shut down by Bradley (and Eisenhower! ) , Patton correctly guesses that it was Montgomery swallowing up all available fuel and supplies. Arnhem was where it was all going to, as Montgomery was insanely jealous of Patton's headlines after breaking out of the French bocage country and racing across France after D-Day !! Now he was determined to make his own splash. (You will note in this video there is no further comment after stating correctly that allies ignored warnings that two German armored divisions were in the Arnhem area). Montgomery had persuaded Churchill to use the "V2 missile sites" as an excuse and persuade Roosevelt to turn the allied offensive over to Montgomery for this reason ….when this offensive was brought about by sheer ego. The Poles caught the brunt of it and were decimated….!! Montgomery lost respect …somewhat…after the Arnhem debacle, but should have been demoted out of command rank. But who else was there to play " hero" for England's armed forces ??
My father had to fly in awful conditions to see if the Bridge was still there . The 1 time he talked about it was the only time he talked about operations & the 1 time I saw him really angry, & that anger seemed to be pointed at 1 man only. The great film “A Big too far” was the trigger for him losing his temper.
Because plodding Montgomery was in charge. It would have worked under Patton. Or Rommel or Manstein or Guderian or others.
The aim was to get across the Rhine. By definition, it couldn't have been a "bridge too far". Cornelius Ryan has a lot to answer for.
90% of the British paratroops sat LEADERLESS in fields a few miles from the Town of Arnhem, while their General was hiding in a house in the town having been almost caught by a German patrol in an unwarranted reconnaissance that wasn't his JOB!
The 2nd Parachute Battalion, numbering about 800, carried out their role & secured one end of the bridge. which they held for four days. An attempt to secure the far end failed due to lack of support.
The remaining forces numbering about 9,000, whose planned advance was delayed through lack of leadership, were stopped by German forces forewarned by the successful taking of the bridgehead and forced to surrender.
The XXX Corps (Armoured) which was supposed to relieve the forces at Arnhem couldn't make progress on a single narrow road leading to the near side because they were unable to bypass vehicles destroyed by German fire from the sides.
It was NOT a case of the plan not surviving contact with the enemy, it was a case of a plan not surviving contact with its INCOMPETENT General. This was all hushed up, of course, and bad luck & bad intelligence were blamed.
A significant proportion of the British troops were unblooded, when they were … eventually… led against the German forces. While I am a fervent Brit, I am convinced that if the 82nd or 101st Airborne had been given the task, they would have succeeded.
Informative video, but I think it is a bit disrespectful not to look up how the town names are pronounced. I understand it would be with a British accent, but Oosterbeek en Veghel sound horrible now.
Probably the biggest flaw was the extensive micro-management.
Had they allies employed mission-tactics, it might have been more successful – might even have achieved all of their goals, with a bit of luck.
The plan made sense. This was a war involving Blitzkreig strategies (punch a hole, move fast and out-manoeuvre your enemy before they get a chance to react, reinforce or entrench, in time frames that involve minutes rather than hours or days) – and they could only be achieved by letting go of "befehlstatik" (meticulously planning every manoeuvre in a battle, and have everybody call up the chain of command if anything they faced differed from what was planned, prepared for or predicted), and instead using mission-tactics (giving those on the ground more autonomy by giving them objectives and the ability and freedom to hit them in the best way they can).
They were trying to do the Blitzkrieg without the Blitzkrieg, essentially.
The reason the German army was so effective with the Blitzkrieg was because they used mission-tactics. So it's no wonder that when the allies tried to do it without those tactics, it failed so spectacularly.
And this isn't an isolated incident.
The British army would learn this lesson again in the Falklands, with the same 2 para from Market Garden being involved – and arguably, despite H Jones getting the VC (rightly, in my opinion), it was command being passed from him with his rigid planning to a new commander who understood and implemented this mission-tactics style (Major Chris Keeble) that won the battle of Goose Green.
H Jones died an heroic, but still needless death – born of a military that was about 30 years late in learning it's lesson.
Market Garden was a good strategy implemented with exactly the wrong type of tactical thinking.
That's ultimately why it failed.
Battles don't work according to your stopwatch in 20th century warfare.
And I get that logistics are important, so maybe belay the plan until you've got enough supply or wherewithal to gain supplies during your advance (something else mission-tactics help with).
Don't meticulously plan a Blitzkrieg because that's not ever how they work. In fact, they work by actively exploiting the enemy doing that.
It's the military equivalent of magically somehow roundhousing yourself in the face.
Maybe it was failed from the start as a way to push straight to Berlin, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that if they'd done the tactics right, they'd have crossed the Rhine at least.
If anyone thinks I'm being unfair, firstly read "not mentioned in dispatches", secondly compare and contrast Operation Market Garden with the Battle of the Bulge – both failures in the long run, but the latter had more impact and successes in the long run.
Great idea, made lots of sense, dumb execution based on almost Victorian ideas of warfare, almost half a century out of date.