Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Britain's Worst Airborne Disaster: Battle of Arnhem | Animated History" video.

  1. Quite correct. Most people, however, seem to work on the principle that 'it was in the movie so it must be true!'
    2
  2. Montgomery didn't regard himself as in any sort of competition with Patton. The idea was put about in the ludicrous 1970 movie. Patton might have thought himself in competition with Montgomery, but there again Patton had many strange ideas. After his awful performance in the Lorraine, Patton was hardly in a position to compare himself with anyone.
    2
  3.  @tomk3732  Oh well. It is clear you have no idea about what Operation Peking was about. Read up on the Romanian Bridgehead. It was hoped by the Polish government, or, more precisely, by Smigly- Rydz, that Polish forces could hold out in the southeast of the country, near the common border with Romania, until relieved by a Franco-British offensive. Munitions and arms could be delivered from the west via Romanian ports and railways. The Polish Navy would then be able to escort the ships delivering the supplies to Romanian ports. There was never going to be British military support for Poland, other than by air or at sea. How could there be, when the British army was only ten divisions in all. Moreover, the Polish government were well aware of this. You would need to ask a French historian why their 100+ divisions failed to act. The Polish destroyers which took part in Operation Peking became part of the Royal Navy when their own country ceased to exist, just as Polish airmen and soldiers became part of the RAF & the British army, but if you believe that their primary ambition when they arrived in Britain was to defend Britain you are sadly deluded. They fought throughout for Poland, and with, of course, justification. The British, by continuing to resist, gave them the opportunity (and the weapons) to do this. Incidentally, you wrote initially that 'Before operation MG Polish commander told his British superiors that this is madness.' You are wrong, because he said that about an earlier plan, Operation Comet, and the same comments had been expressed already by several British commanders. He was, in fact, much less critical of Market-Garden. You really should take no notice of 'A Bridge Too Far,' as much of it is inaccurate.
    2
  4. And especially the utterly false tea drinking scene, which even the actual US officer allegedly portrayed by Redford disowned.
    2
  5. Surprising how many people actually believe that!
    1
  6.  @Wolfgrand  You see. This is what happens when people base their ideas about history on Hollywood rather than reality. They post foolishness like yours.
    1
  7.  @Wolfgrand  I haven't actually defended anyone, old chap. I am simply ridiculing you for confusing Hollywood & fact.
    1
  8.  @Wolfgrand  Well, you quoted a scene from 'A Bridge Too Far.' Wasn't that Hollywood, or did you think it was a documentary?
    1
  9.  @Wolfgrand  Oh well. If you think that 'A Bridge Too Far' accurately depicted the facts of 'Market Garden' then perhaps you shouldn't read any history books on the action, but remain firmly rooted to your clearly firmly held prejudices.
    1
  10. Not a patch on the Hurtgen Forest or Patton's Lorraine catastrophe.
    1
  11. The Dutch starved because they were still under German occupation.
    1
  12.  @robvoncken2565  I know. How is this Montgomery's fault?
    1
  13.  @robvoncken2565  If so, why did Eisenhower sanction it?
    1
  14. Dunkirk was 'poorly planned, poorly executed.' How do you reach that conclusion? Admiral Ramsay was ordered to lift 40,000 men, and lifted 338,000. How is that poor planning or execution?
    1
  15. However, don't watch it if you prefer accurate history.
    1
  16. Just a pity they played fast and loose with many of the facts.
    1
  17. Yes. Just don't believe that it is accurate, as many wrongly do.
    1
  18. 'he was jealous of Patton's obvious superior generalship' You mean like Patton's triumph during the Lorraine campaign, where there were 50,000 American casualties, approximately one third of the total American casualties in the European war? The supposed rivalry between Montgomery & Patton is fictional, at least on Montgomery's part, and the myth has only grown as a result of the 1970 movie comedy 'Patton - Lust For Glory' based on Ladislas Farago's hagiography of Patton. Without the movie, Patton would today be seen for what he was. As Cornelius Ryan pointed out, Montgomery believed in the single trust as opposed to the broad front strategy on principle. How many people actually know that he offered to play a secondary role to Bradley if it meant that the single thrust took place? Montgomery had a number of faults, but envy of a junior was not one of them.
    1
  19. The British never promised to support Poland with ground troops. How could they, with a peacetime army of around ten divisions? 'Operation Market Garden one of the most ill conceived and poorly planned planned operations of the war.' Look up the Hurtgen Forest, or Patton's Lorraine Campaign, before you say that.
    1
  20. The Poles did not fight to defend Britain. They fought alongside the British because their own country had been conquered and the British were the only European country still in arms against Germany.
    1
  21.  @tomk3732  But not to defend Britain. Operation Peking was intended to prevent three of the most modern Polish destroyers from being trapped in the Baltic, in order that they could co-operate with the British & French navies. There was no suggestion that they were there to defend Britain. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by :- 'They only fought when it was their turn to face them across the channel,' as it doesn't seem to make any sense.
    1
  22. It didn't seem to notice that there were two bridges at Nijmegen, and it chose to include a fictional episode where the heroic Robert Redford rebuked the British for 'stopping for tea.'
    1