Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "The REAL Operation Market Garden | BATTLESTORM Documentary | All Episodes" video.

Yes, poor use or lack of intelligence on German army units in Holland is most definitely part of it. It should also be noted that, in spite of having fought the Wehrmacht for 4 years, the British Army (as well as the Soviet and American armies) were always surprised by how well the German armies repeatedly managed to put together some semblance of a defense line out of scattered remnants. Market-Garden is one such example. It was also an operation where a bunch of mis-steps lead to the overall failure in achieving the strategic objective. I would suggest, though, that while the bridge at Arnhem was not captured, the operation was not a total failure. The region captured by the Allied forces during Market-Garden was retained by them and ended up becoming the jumping-off point for the British drive through the Reichwald to the Rhine in the spring of 1945. Thus, given the end result, I would be tempted to say the battle ended in a draw.
2
@lyndoncmp5751 As you said above, the ground taken did provide a buffer zone in front of Antwerp.I know this very well - my mother was stationed in Belgium in late 1944 and early 1945 as a radar operator for an AA battery shooting down V1s on their way to Antwerp. She later followed the British Army into Germany, and finished the war stationed at a former German airdrome (we have photos in our family album of a ME262 jet fighter sitting in a collapsed hangar). She also told me about her trip to see Bergen-Belsen 2 weeks after its liberation.
2
I actually disagree. Something which is ignored here is that had the 82nd landed a battalion north of Nijmegen bridge, it would have faced an SS panzer division almost right away, and there is a good chance the airborne troops would have been mauled, if not annihilated. Even if they had held on, odds are the Germans would have shelled the bridge and destroyed it. The only way to have prevented this would have been for the British paratroopers to have landed south of Arnhem bridge. That way they could have taken the bridge (hopefully), secured resupply drop zones and prevented any advance on Nijmegen bridge. However, as Roger Whittaker says, "I don't believe in IF anymore".
2
 @richardgao7307 What, no 12th Battle of the Isonzo River?
1
Having watched the entire series on Market Garden, I will have to disagree somewhat with your summary of what went wrong. Overall, although nice in concept, the main issue with the attack was that it was made with the presumption that the Germans were still on the run and incapable of mounting a serious defence. This is somewhat understandable, as the British Army (as well as the Americans) had made spectacular gains following the defeat of the German army in Normandy. I seem to recall that the British Army raced the 300+ kilometres from the Seine to the Antwerp in a little over 2 weeks. It is possible that Montgomery may have been trying to repeat, or was thinking back on, his successful advance on Tripoli. Here, Montgomery "suckered" Rommel into defending a line at Beurat, then punched through Rommel's defences and "bounced" the Axis forces out of the more defensible terrain (Homs-Tarhuna position) just east of Tripoli before they could dig in and defend the approaches to the port. It may be my imagination, but Market Garden seems to have the same feel to it (race up and take the bridges before the enemy can react). Sadly, for the airborne troops and 30 Corps, the British intelligence was lacking and did not trust the Dutch underground's reports, with fatal results. I also agree that the plan relied too heavily on the enemy reacting the way you hoped they would, and was a bit overambitious. Was it a mistake? No, I don't think so, merely a plan that did not work out. Market-Garden is probably the epitome of the old saying, "Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan". Or, to quote Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much!"
1
@lyndoncmp5751 That is mostly true. However, the Dutch resistance did have some information. Unfortunately, it was downplayed because the British intelligence services no longer trusted their Dutch sources. The reason for that was due to the actions of a Dutch double agent who compromised the Dutch intelligence network in the Netherlands the previous year. Once bitten, twice shy, so they say.
1
@thevillaaston7811 Thank you for your reply. I have seen stuff from a couple of trolls, one of whom is a Patton fanatic. To clarify my position, I am not saying that Montgomery and the British Army did not make mistakes. They are only human (although I will admit that Monty's ego got in the way of sound judgement on several occasions). General Horrocks, in an interview done for "The World at War", a brilliant 1970s history of WW2, acknowledges that the British Army had enough supplies and should have pressed on to cut the isthmus at Beveland would have prevented the Germans from evacuating many of their troops from the Scheldt estuary. This is something that Cornelius Ryan points out in "A Bridge Too Far". However, based on the collapse of the front in France, everyone figured they could win the war in 1944. Almost everyone figured they could do so. In addition, it must be remembered the British army in northwest Europe was the LAST army they could put in the field. Manpower issues were so bad that by late 1944 or early 1945 they were cannibalizing divisions to bring other units up to strength. Since we are looking at things in 20:20 hindsight and don't have the huge responsibilities these generals had, we can only guess what we would have done in the same situation. As far as Montgomery's responsibility for the partial failure/partial success of Market Garden, all one can do is repeat Harry Truman's famous placard, "The Buck Stops Here".
1