A Fantastic Film. It never ceases to amaze me... the arrogance of some military leaders and the futility of war, this coming from an officer and paratrooper.
Too bad the sound was horrible throughout the last several parts. I stuck with it because the film is solid, but whoever was messing with the sound FAILED as much as Montgomery in the logistics of the operation. :p
One of the best war movies of all times ..I saw it during my childhood and never forgot it from 1994 .. recorded on VHS in 1996 ... in don't know where fuck is that tape I hope to find it .. and now here on YT .. thanks ross for this epic movie :D :D
@Hairysteed Wow, I hardly remember writing that comment. That was so long ago. Yes, you're right but what I was referring to was how this is one of the only good movies made based on a failure rather than a victory for the allies. I mean there's Passchendale but that was a rather pathetic cheese-fest. Only about a half an hour of that movie was scenes from Passchendale and even then it wasn't half as good as this. I just love how it's a successful movie about the allies loss, thanks though :)
Thank you user name andrejing, for your service during WWII. I myself served in the 82nd, 2 tours in Iraq, one in the Afgan. Were you 82nd yourself sir?
Operation Market Garden was a immense tactical blunder for the allies during WW2! It is also good to note what happened during the Battle of the Bulge, if not for numerical superiority... the allies would not have turn the tide of the conflict.
With a great pleasure i always watch at the end of this film,for US and British defeat!Poor and naive Poles sold to Stalin but still fighting for Churchill!What a funny and disgusting heroism!Today Poles are fighting for US and British domination and gets a few dollar per day.Fuck NATO and our falls allies-to hell with'em! ;-))))!
@DennisSpeer1 Hi!Read carefully what did I write:MY COUNTRY WAS SOLD TO STALIN.Poland was betrayed by "western allies".In the time of "Market-Garden" my home city-Warsaw-was ruined because of an "Warsaw Upraisng" provocated by English spies.In may 1945 Polish Forces were forbidden by English to take part in a Victory Parade in London.This is why I am so amused watching at the kicked traitors of my homeland ;-))))!Greetings from Warsaw Friend!
@Sowka1967 Oh and I suppose the western powers imposed a single-party state in the countries liberated by them where the "capitalist party" was the only accepted party and where freedom of expression was nonexistent.
What is forgotten about Market Garden was the fate of the Dutch population. Dutch workers went on strike when Market Garden took place, and when the Operation failed, the Germans took their revenge on the population by cutting off all food and fuel and deliberately starved the Dutch population to death, and thousands of people lost their lives.
@andrejing WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS. ur profile says ur 39 and from the Philippines. i know this has already been pointed out but...why would u even lie about that?? and why is everone messageing him??. im a bit pissed off that some poeple would even lie about this and to have poeple believe them is ridiculos!!
@MrMan27894 wtf! lol i just click on it haha i thought he was serious about that comment.. wa a joke!!!! lmao n i commented on it before i even saw it.. fuck that shit
All I have read of Market Garden and in viewing this film I can't help but , " what if " the operation. My over-riding " what if " is , What if Patton lead the charge up the main road ?
@Pyromancy451 If the positions had been reversed and lets say it was the Fallschrimjaeger holding Arnhem bridge and the SS panzer divisions had been tasked with linking up and relieving them I honestly think they would have pushed on regardless of the cost.
@Pyromancy451 If Patton had lead the Charge, the 101st would have dropped in Berlin, captured the Fuhrer and Patton would have relieved them in 48 hours, nothing less!
@tomtom34b: No they would not; because if they would toddle around in Berlin while asking the folk how to find the leader without saying properly “der Fuehrer” (never forget the nasty Umlaut when speaking German) the Germans would quickly suspect them to be stranger and they would be arrested by the Gestapo very quickly, while that American general would again beat up some cry-baby in the hospital and than got arrested himself, so the whole attack would have ended up in a even bigger disaster!
I have watched every single part, must say, this film is just breath taking. Shows everything about the war, the mislead leaders such as Montgomery, the determination of the Brits at Arnhem, it's just brilliant. I am actually so proud to be British after seeing this film, but also to anyone who has lived through this, or has lost someone from this operation, you have my upmost respect. Market Garden could be argued to have been a mistake, that cost thousands of lives. Much Love :)
@andrejing How can this be one of the top comments when this comment makes a mockery of the portrayed events. This person claims in one instance to be 95, while claiming to be 40 on their YT page. Ignorant people, like andrejing, need to learn when it is and isnt appropriate to make light of an event. His/Her comment is neither amusing nor appropriate. 14 of you need to be slapped for 'Thumbs upping' it.
@andrejing Thanks for fighting for all nations you deserve a good pat on the back for your hard work. by all means i have all my respect to you you deserve it.
@Killerkalle06 My grandfather became a war invalid during the continuation war; he lost his hearing when a train wagon loaded with mines blew up close to him. His buddy wasn't as lucky. Not wounded in combat - just wrong place at the wrong time. Shows how much war sucks!
I think that this may be one of the only war movies created making the American side the good guys where they are also defeated. I just think that the story of the woman and her family are the most ispiring. The fact that they gave up everything in the blink of an eye, just to let the men die in a somewhat peaceful place. Selflessness is a gift many do not have. But then again, I am also just a 14 year old who knows squat about war, but I am also a bit of a history lover so I guess it evens out.
I have long waited for this excellent movie to appear here, as it is without a doubt one of the best movies made about World War II from the military perspective; no dull politics or idle talk about humanitarian goals; and the fighting is at least a bit realistic: I cannot stand the movies the Americans recently made about this war: Considering the ridiculous fuss they made about their landings in Normandy; especially the ending, when Americans troopers stop a heavy German tank attack. ...
While of course I reject the foolish fashion of having multiple languages in a movie! Though I can understand German, due to the mysterious ways of the French public schooling system, it is annoying and the dialogues are not really well done, but Shakespeare cannot always be around and the modern times are a proletarian and non poetical age; but concerning realism I think no movie can cope with Das Boot (made in 1980).
I think you are talking about "Saving Private Ryan"... I liked the movie... and yes, I understand that it might not be real... but it does bring you to tears at some moments... then again I am nothing but a 14 year old... So in the end... War is an ugly bussiness, I think that the violence and bloodshed in "Saving Private Ryan" could have a possibility of happening... And it was a pretty thorough operation... So unless you were in the army... I don't think we will know...
@Warfareful: There is little wonder that you liked the movie as such movies are made to appeal to the masses (just look at the music, the story and the characters involved, so the chance is pretty high that most people find such movies enjoyable); but as for realism: In a real battle one does not see the bullets fly and the gore happens too quickly for the human eye; and the ending is ridiculous: Having some petty US infantry troopers resisting a large German tank attack.
@GreatGrumbledook - In Saving Private Ryan, the Americans do NOT "stop a heavy German tank attack." They get lucky and manage to blow the tracks off one German tank, and manage to lob molotov cocktails into an open-topped German armored vehicle. The other couple tanks with the Germans were pretty much unstoppable and the actions of the soldiers were useless. The tanks were only stopped when US fighter bombers arrived and smashed the tanks.
@sdr24: Elaborating this does not help: The fact remains that this movie shows about ten American troopers repulsing a heavy German attack with dozens of infantry, mobile assault guns and heavy tanks; and that the tactical bombers arrive at the exact moment, when the US troopers are nearly defeated and have retreated to their Alamo position makes this scene all the more ridiculous; the German troops would have not blocked the Allied advance for two months if their troops were so easy to defeat.
@GreatGrumbledook - It doesn't show them "repulsing" anything. It shows them ambushing a lot of infantry, getting lucky with a tank, and then getting slowly pushed back while the guys die off one by one. Then air power shows up and makes the difference, like it did all over the western front. You are simply exaggerating what the movie actually shows. Air superiority was a terrible decisive advantage for the Allies on the Western front - and they absolutely had it during D-Day.
@sdr24: Nope, they lured Germans to their position with vehicle, so it is no ambush as the enemy was aware of their whereabouts; and if you do not find it infantile and of revolting mass appeal that the air force arrives just in time, not to early or to late to rescue the besieged heroes I cannot help you; but watch this movie: No air power helped here and though some allied goals were archived still there were bitter loses; and that is my point about modern war movies being to melodramatic...
@GreatGrumbledook - (shrug) I guess I've got other things to get worked up about. A bit of drama doesn't bother me much. As long as it doesn't come at the expense of basic plausibility, works for me. And say whatever you want, I didn't find that fight all that implausible. I've read enough World War II history to know that what actually happened to the soldiers was often more far-fetched than anything cooked up in Hollywood.
@GreatGrumbledook The movies you refer to were made by Americans for Americans. They are released elsewhere for whatever income they can pull in. The Normandy landings ARE a big deal to us. If you don't like American war movies, DON'T WATCH THEM.
@specom: Dear me! Have you Americans now respect for your English lackeys? Not only that they have to surrender their precious empire to you but now you deny them even the service they have done for you? Besides this movie has a clear focus on the English and the Americans play here a minor role (you can easily see that by the mass of the soldiers wearing the old multifunctional English helmet, to be used as soup plate, camber pot and head protection).
@specom: And what the Americans consider the D-Day landing fuss to be is totally insignificant, the only thing that matters here is what impact it hand on the war and since Germany was already defeated (fighting a loosing battle against numerical far superior foes, with no hope to turn the tide of the war) it was very little.
@ampthilluk: Exactly; or have you never heard of Monsieur Churchill signing the Atlantic Charta in mid 1941, which marks the end of any foreign/colonial rule? If France would claim that her total defeat at the hands of Germany had crippled her so much, that she was unable to uphold her overseas empire anymore it would sound half creditable; but what excuse has England for losing all her colonies in the wake of World War II? And do not try to tell me that this was a voluntary act of grace!
1. it was the British Empire not just England and i only referred to it as England orginally orginally because the original poster did.
2. I haven't heard of the Atlantic Charter so enlighten me.
3. "but what excuse has England for losing all her colonies in the wake of World War II?" you just said that Churchill signed the atlantic charter so why are you asking a question you've just answered?
@ampthilluk: First: England conquered Wales, Ireland and Scotland so the term Britain is a mere mockery and disguise for the English Empire. Second: If you have not heard about the Atlantic Charta you should do some reading about World War II as it states the war goals of the USA and her lackeys (England and her daughter states mostly) – but if you know about the original principles of the UN you know what the Atlantic Charta is all about; basically the principles of the American hegemony.
@ampthilluk: Third: I just did elaborate that point as the English are suffering under many delusions! Geographically for example the seem to see themselves as Newfoundland, else one can not understand why they focus their entire foreign policy on the USA, instead of taking care for European affairs (no old English government would have allowed a thing like the EU to develop, due to the balance of power which was somewhat the Holy Grail of the English diplomacy for centuries).
@ampthilluk: When England publicly agrees to a new order of the world in which she must necessarily lose her precious empire and puts her self at the mercy of outspoken anti-colonial powers such as the USA and the Soviet Union I think one can call it the surrender of the English empire; though Churchill had later some delusions that England was not bound to the Atlantic Charter at all but history proved him utterly wrong on his peevish assumption.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar britain volantarily gave up the countires in its empire to let them become independant. that is NOT surrendering it empire to america. for a start, surrendering its empire to USA would mean that america would take control of it instead, but it didnt.
@ampthilluk: Now this is strange: In his fancy public speeches Monsieur Churchill declared in 1940 expressly that he wanted to fight in order to preserve the English Empire; how came it than that the English so suddenly decided to disband their beloved empire? I hardly think that this is a coincidence and as for the American rule: Things like the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund are known to you? As by such tools the USA rules or better exploits the former European colonies today.
@ampthilluk: Many times I have done that; just read my former comments to learn how. Short: England consented to the new world order, by which her colonies will become sooner or later independent, and by which global institutions are founded which are controlled by the Americans and via them the USA does rule the former English colonies as well as the English daughter states have become vassals of the USA (NATO and the like) and this is how England surrendered her empire to the USA.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar no you havent said it before, you were talking about other things. and you're wrong. world organiations like NATO and UN are democracies, with representitves and voting and the countriesin them are not ruled by the USA. the USA does not rule former BRITISH (not English) as they are now independant states. you're effectively saying that any country in an organisation that also has USA in it, is controlled by the USA.
@ampthilluk: I am not some sort of a political Jesus, so I cannot make the blind see. If you fail to see the American hegemony I can not show it to you. If you believe in the delusion of international democracy I cannot cure you; and if you think that countries like Libya or Mesopotamia are independent I can not show you that they are not; and if you do not recognize the European nations being the mere vassals of the USA I cannot show it to you; unless you try to explain the Suez crisis of 1956.
@ampthilluk: Thanks; but soberly considered I think I got some glimpse of knowledge when it comes to things like history, politics and philosophy (plus some other spheres which do not matter here); so I suppose that my views are based on some grounds and arguments and unless you can refute them I will uphold them; so feel free to explain me the workings behind the Suez Crisis of 1956 or why Monsieur Churchill lamented so bitterly that he could not preserve the English Empire.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar why the fuck would i know? theyve got nothing to do with what you originally said and why do you have to write is such a formal way? it's so fucking annoying.
@ampthilluk: Children may be reading this so you should not use the vulgar word for fornication in any case! While I did wonder for quite a while what is it that you would like to know of me, since I cannot make much sense of your replies; and I cannot help you: You English types may indulge in that awful thing called “Plain English” foreigners like myself will always prefer to express themselves in proper English; besides: You did first reply to me if I am not much deceived.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar yes i speak proper english as do foreign people that i know. its just that the english you use is way more formal than most people speak, whether english is their first language or not.
@ampthilluk: Nope, you did originally reply to my old and no abandoned channel GreatGrumbledook (which I had to quit in order to gave the internet folk a more clear hind on my female gender, as I was getting sick of being called guy or dude); while my English may be more formal indeed as I do orientate it on the language of English poets, historians and politicians as there are the English texts I tend to read; so it is not deliberately that I use such an English.
@ampthilluk: Because ever since the great Machiavelli politics are no longer bound to morale and religion to act as their tool to make the world as they want to have it! Ever since then the state is a sphere of its own, following its own laws like war or physics; and ever since it is known that those humanitarian nonsense is only a mask for political goals and ambitions or do you really think that the dull-brained Americans did sent their stooges England and France to Libya to do good there?
@FireEyedMaidOfWar "no longer bound to morale and religion" - good, because religion is just lies anyway.
"following its own laws like war or physics" - what's physics got to do with it?
"do you really think that the dull-brained Americans did sent their stooges England and France to Libya to do good there?" i don't know if you are aware of this but it's a well known fact that britain and france were the ones trying to help libya and trying to persuade other countries, not america.
@ampthilluk: No blasphemy here (at least not with the restriction that modern religions like Christendom are based on lies but never ever slander the old Gods in my presence or I will invoke Machiavelli on it!); and physics has nothing to do with politics except that politics are bound to the laws of nature; but politics do work according to their own laws as well and to acquaint you with them I suppose you do read “The Prince” of Machiavelli for a start; but back to that Libyan folly.
@ampthilluk: We will always have to come back to the Suez crisis of 1956 here: Do you think England and France did abandon the Suez Channel due to the American bidding in 1956 and are able to invade Libya in 2011 without having the American approval? Libya is a major oil country and the USA does not allow its mediocre vassals to meddle with them against its will; so I guess the whole fuss is pretty much like the American invasion of Cuba on the Bay of Pigs in 1961!
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Invade Libya? NATO is launching air strikes at military targets because they are an oppressive government not because we want to invade, we're there supporting democracy with all things good and proper. But this isn't the first time America has bombed Libya, just the first time where it is justified.
@PROkiller16: The foul Americans and not their vassal league is doing so (the Suez Crisis of 1956 may resolve any doubts if someone should think that France or even England are allowed to act still like they have done when they were great powers); and those Libyan rebels do not appear to me any more creditable than those fools the vile Americans did send to the Bay of Pigs on Cuba and their support in Libya seem to be so limited that they can do nothing without American air support.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar NATO, America is not that invested into Libya compared to someone like Germany. Mainly because we're on firing line if the rebels are crushed.
Seriously, they have made threats that they will attack Europe.
@PROkiller16: But you are aware that the Americans are paying 2/3 of the war efforts and that France and England would be out of ammunition without their supplies? Besides the NATO is nothing more than the Corinthian League was for Macedon in Greece: The instrument of their military hegemony over Europe (the Russians had a similar pact a while ago); and the Libyan menaces are nonsense: They have no air force and no navy so Europe is out of danger.
@PROkiller16: Though the real problems will start when the Libyan ruler is overthrown since the Americans usually make very poor choices when they install their puppet government in conquered countries; just think of the mass they produced in Mesopotamia or Bactria! So Europe will rather get a second Persia, meaning Mohammedan fanatics ruling the country, or a second Somalia, including the pirate problem and with unrestrained illegal immigration than a decent state in her neighbourhood.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Not really. Well think about the splash effect, driven with a victory and war economy Libya would get cocky and spill over to neighbours and from that Europe could be threaten.
It's highly improbable but the chance remains and we like democracy.
@PROkiller16: Well, the possibility that the current Libyan leader will spark another wave of fanatical Saracens and Moors invading Europe is very low; and one thing is sure already: There will be no democracy in Libya no matter who prevails as the Americans use there the same religious fanatics they have used in Bactria against the Russians and not even their parliament wants to supply them with arms; so if you like democracy you should journey to Greece and visit Athens its birthplace instead.
@PROkiller16 -- Why do you think the US goaded NATO into becoming Enforcer for the Global Elites, Central Banking Syndicates, Corporate interests, MIC franchises, narco/drug cartels & assorted Gangster Racketeers' rigged-game Vulture Capitalists? Libya (like Cuba & Venezuela) had local representative democracy, free Medical care, housing, jobs, education, vibrant economy. The very LAST thing any nation 'liberated' by the west can expect is self-determinism, a fair shake, economic/social justice.
@ampthilluk hahahahahahahaha, you talk so much rubbish, america has never had an empire and probably never will, Britain gave independence to countries that wanted it or because we needed to, we never gave it to the americans at all, have you never heard of the commonwealth? As far as I'm aware off, america has never won a war on its own two feet, they have always has another country backing them.
@ampthilluk And before you rudely interrupt a valid history lesson, no america didn't win the American War of Independence of its own two feet, you had the backing from the French, Spanish and i think the Dutch. The last war the British won on its own two feet was the Falklands war in the 1980s.
@FireEyedMaidOfWar thanks for not answering the question. i know quite a bit about WW2 anyway but i hadnt heard of that charter. (why do you call it charta). and am i right in thinking the charter gave permission for colonised countries to become independant states?
@ampthilluk: Maybe because I am no native speaker and did not learn English at school (so grammar mistakes will continue to haunt my texts)? As for the Atlantic Charter: Originally it was planed that indeed the colonies should be put under the mandate of the UNO but Monsieur Churchill managed to prevent it, else the victory day celebration would have been cancelled; but it was laid down that self-determination of the people should be now the founding principle of international law, I may quote:
"Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;"
So you see: This marks the end of all traditional colonial empires; since it is expressly said in the preface of the Atlantic Charter that these princples should be vaild world wide and are not limited to Europe. So you see this leads to the UN Charter straight.
What I really liked about this movie is that the german soldiers actually talk german, not english with a strange accent :D And that the dutch actaully talk dutch. Feels very historicly correct.
Aldo the start of the movie where it claims that up untill D-day the war was going Hilters way. not so historicly correct and obvious propaganda, the Russians had allready defeated the bulk of the Nazi forces.
Little detail Hollywood liked to forget in those days...
fucking shit audio, stop fucking with the controls next time
pace1one08 1 week ago
Pictures all OK but all sound is almost inaudible in all parts of this movie.
shamusoz 2 weeks ago
A Fantastic Film. It never ceases to amaze me... the arrogance of some military leaders and the futility of war, this coming from an officer and paratrooper.
Thank you for sharing Ross.
wthomps323 1 month ago 2
Too bad the sound was horrible throughout the last several parts. I stuck with it because the film is solid, but whoever was messing with the sound FAILED as much as Montgomery in the logistics of the operation. :p
planetwalker 2 months ago
One of the best war movies of all times ..I saw it during my childhood and never forgot it from 1994 .. recorded on VHS in 1996 ... in don't know where fuck is that tape I hope to find it .. and now here on YT .. thanks ross for this epic movie :D :D
Giampymike 3 months ago
sooo what happened to the wounded after the germans arrived? they took them prisoner?
TheVenturino123 3 months ago
@TheVenturino123 -- yes, silly... what else would they do with them? Serve them tea and cruppets? lol
the82spartans 3 months ago
@the82spartans ...their Nazis, they could have killed them for all we know....thats why I was asking, you numbrod
TheVenturino123 3 months ago
@TheVenturino123 -- No offence meant. Yes, even Nazis took POW.
Peace to you.
the82spartans 3 months ago
Thanks for uploading this - much appreciated.
HeatherSpoonheim 4 months ago
@specom No, your right, i haven't. Thanks for the recomendation :)
TiaralovesTinsel 4 months ago
@Hairysteed Wow, I hardly remember writing that comment. That was so long ago. Yes, you're right but what I was referring to was how this is one of the only good movies made based on a failure rather than a victory for the allies. I mean there's Passchendale but that was a rather pathetic cheese-fest. Only about a half an hour of that movie was scenes from Passchendale and even then it wasn't half as good as this. I just love how it's a successful movie about the allies loss, thanks though :)
TiaralovesTinsel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andrejing Your account says your 40 and from the Philippines.
uafchris 2 weeks ago
thumb-up....derp. Must be the same critical thinking that pushed to "a bridge to far"
IronRangeSurvival 4 months ago in playlist sneakYTmoobies
Heroic and tragic failure, good movie depicting the story, thanks for posting.
squamish4244 5 months ago
Thank you user name andrejing, for your service during WWII. I myself served in the 82nd, 2 tours in Iraq, one in the Afgan. Were you 82nd yourself sir?
swelsa1863 5 months ago
Comment removed
uafchris 5 months ago
Operation Market Garden was a immense tactical blunder for the allies during WW2! It is also good to note what happened during the Battle of the Bulge, if not for numerical superiority... the allies would not have turn the tide of the conflict.
pogilon69 5 months ago 2
With a great pleasure i always watch at the end of this film,for US and British defeat!Poor and naive Poles sold to Stalin but still fighting for Churchill!What a funny and disgusting heroism!Today Poles are fighting for US and British domination and gets a few dollar per day.Fuck NATO and our falls allies-to hell with'em! ;-))))!
Sowka1967 6 months ago
@Sowka1967
And why is their defeat so amusing? I am gratefull for what they did in WWII, they liberated our country.
It's been years ago but It is still rather a important moment in history.
DennisSpeer1 6 months ago
@DennisSpeer1 Hi!Read carefully what did I write:MY COUNTRY WAS SOLD TO STALIN.Poland was betrayed by "western allies".In the time of "Market-Garden" my home city-Warsaw-was ruined because of an "Warsaw Upraisng" provocated by English spies.In may 1945 Polish Forces were forbidden by English to take part in a Victory Parade in London.This is why I am so amused watching at the kicked traitors of my homeland ;-))))!Greetings from Warsaw Friend!
Sowka1967 6 months ago
@Sowka1967 Oh and I suppose the western powers imposed a single-party state in the countries liberated by them where the "capitalist party" was the only accepted party and where freedom of expression was nonexistent.
Oh wait... THAT WAS SOVIET UNION!!
Hairysteed 4 months ago
my respects to andrejing if he was there durin market garden and wwII. Also to averagezombie1's grandfather
garhull11 6 months ago
สพานทีมันไม่ไกลเกินความจริง แต่เกิดจากการไม่สามัคคีชิ่งดีชิ่งเด่นในการเข้ายึดจึงต้องเกิดการสูญเสียอย่างไม่นาให้อภัยการปฏิบัติการครั้งนี้ทั่งๆทีส่งกำลังเข้าไปมากมายแต่เกี่ยงกันผลที่ออกมาจึงเป็นที่เราได้เห็นขอแสดงความเสียใจสำหรับทุกชีวิตที่จบลงไปไว้ ณ. ที่นี้ด้วยขอแสดงการไว้อาลัย
sampanchanpa 6 months ago
my grandpa was one of th people in the grop of injred men in real ife they actually sang just not that song
averagezombie1 7 months ago in playlist Classic Movie Scenes
20.000 Dutch civilians starved in the Winter that followed
Raafje84 11 months ago
My uncle played soldier #568, but he's nowhere in the credits D:
whopper1209 11 months ago
What is forgotten about Market Garden was the fate of the Dutch population. Dutch workers went on strike when Market Garden took place, and when the Operation failed, the Germans took their revenge on the population by cutting off all food and fuel and deliberately starved the Dutch population to death, and thousands of people lost their lives.
mightymac63 1 year ago
sad ending i want to cry
MrSomaliasomalia 1 year ago
@andrejing WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS. ur profile says ur 39 and from the Philippines. i know this has already been pointed out but...why would u even lie about that?? and why is everone messageing him??. im a bit pissed off that some poeple would even lie about this and to have poeple believe them is ridiculos!!
MrMan27894 1 year ago 2
@MrMan27894 wtf! lol i just click on it haha i thought he was serious about that comment.. wa a joke!!!! lmao n i commented on it before i even saw it.. fuck that shit
SpainBlood001 1 year ago
@andrejing bit of a white lie old boy since your profile says your 39 and from the Philippines. Should be ashamed of yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
maynsy88 1 year ago
All I have read of Market Garden and in viewing this film I can't help but , " what if " the operation. My over-riding " what if " is , What if Patton lead the charge up the main road ?
Pyromancy451 1 year ago
@Pyromancy451 If the positions had been reversed and lets say it was the Fallschrimjaeger holding Arnhem bridge and the SS panzer divisions had been tasked with linking up and relieving them I honestly think they would have pushed on regardless of the cost.
Sabreur64 1 year ago
@Pyromancy451 If Patton had lead the Charge, the 101st would have dropped in Berlin, captured the Fuhrer and Patton would have relieved them in 48 hours, nothing less!
tomtom34b 9 months ago
@tomtom34b: No they would not; because if they would toddle around in Berlin while asking the folk how to find the leader without saying properly “der Fuehrer” (never forget the nasty Umlaut when speaking German) the Germans would quickly suspect them to be stranger and they would be arrested by the Gestapo very quickly, while that American general would again beat up some cry-baby in the hospital and than got arrested himself, so the whole attack would have ended up in a even bigger disaster!
FireEyedMaidOfWar 9 months ago
I have watched every single part, must say, this film is just breath taking. Shows everything about the war, the mislead leaders such as Montgomery, the determination of the Brits at Arnhem, it's just brilliant. I am actually so proud to be British after seeing this film, but also to anyone who has lived through this, or has lost someone from this operation, you have my upmost respect. Market Garden could be argued to have been a mistake, that cost thousands of lives. Much Love :)
lxlCyanidelxl 1 year ago
Would this movie have been made, if Monty were still alive?
shanghaibenny2 1 year ago
I can still remember the horrible events during operation market garden. Since I was there myself Im already 95 years old.
andrejing 1 year ago 17
@andrejing Thank you for your service, sir.
935323 1 year ago
@andrejing I would love to hear that story. you should have it written down!!
935323 1 year ago
@andrejing you shoud write your experiences down!!!
935323 1 year ago
@andrejing
What was your unit? Where did you fight?
And lastly thank you for your service to your country
alexlvsport 1 year ago
@alexlvsport its fake
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@andrejing respect
SpainBlood001 1 year ago
@andrejing How can this be one of the top comments when this comment makes a mockery of the portrayed events. This person claims in one instance to be 95, while claiming to be 40 on their YT page. Ignorant people, like andrejing, need to learn when it is and isnt appropriate to make light of an event. His/Her comment is neither amusing nor appropriate. 14 of you need to be slapped for 'Thumbs upping' it.
Gasman2749 7 months ago
@andrejing
A 95 your old on youtube?
DennisSpeer1 6 months ago
@andrejing Thanks for fighting for all nations you deserve a good pat on the back for your hard work. by all means i have all my respect to you you deserve it.
mrbrunopolska 5 months ago
Comment removed
uafchris 5 months ago
@andrejing Your account says your 40 and from the Philippines.
uafchris 5 months ago
Thx.
dorslv 1 year ago
best war film ever i reckon
thx again for uploading
petergreg101 1 year ago
I know this is only a movie, but after i see it i feel sorry for everyone who died.
My grandad was one of them he was fighting for Finland in the winter war, im from Sweden btw.
Sry for bad english.
Killerkalle06 1 year ago 17
@Killerkalle06 your english is pretty good actually.
ross79745 1 year ago 7
@Killerkalle06 Was he one of the volunteers?
TheGroundedAviator 1 year ago
@Killerkalle06 My grandfather became a war invalid during the continuation war; he lost his hearing when a train wagon loaded with mines blew up close to him. His buddy wasn't as lucky. Not wounded in combat - just wrong place at the wrong time. Shows how much war sucks!
Hairysteed 4 months ago
love the movie thx 4 the upload !
guentherstoll 1 year ago
I think that this may be one of the only war movies created making the American side the good guys where they are also defeated. I just think that the story of the woman and her family are the most ispiring. The fact that they gave up everything in the blink of an eye, just to let the men die in a somewhat peaceful place. Selflessness is a gift many do not have. But then again, I am also just a 14 year old who knows squat about war, but I am also a bit of a history lover so I guess it evens out.
TiaralovesTinsel 1 year ago
@TiaralovesTinsel Then you've never seen "Bataan" with Robert Taylor.
specom 1 year ago
@TiaralovesTinsel Well, it's not like you can ignore history and create a movie about Market Garden where the allies win
Hairysteed 4 months ago
I have long waited for this excellent movie to appear here, as it is without a doubt one of the best movies made about World War II from the military perspective; no dull politics or idle talk about humanitarian goals; and the fighting is at least a bit realistic: I cannot stand the movies the Americans recently made about this war: Considering the ridiculous fuss they made about their landings in Normandy; especially the ending, when Americans troopers stop a heavy German tank attack. ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
While of course I reject the foolish fashion of having multiple languages in a movie! Though I can understand German, due to the mysterious ways of the French public schooling system, it is annoying and the dialogues are not really well done, but Shakespeare cannot always be around and the modern times are a proletarian and non poetical age; but concerning realism I think no movie can cope with Das Boot (made in 1980).
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook
I think you are talking about "Saving Private Ryan"... I liked the movie... and yes, I understand that it might not be real... but it does bring you to tears at some moments... then again I am nothing but a 14 year old... So in the end... War is an ugly bussiness, I think that the violence and bloodshed in "Saving Private Ryan" could have a possibility of happening... And it was a pretty thorough operation... So unless you were in the army... I don't think we will know...
Warfareful 1 year ago
@Warfareful: There is little wonder that you liked the movie as such movies are made to appeal to the masses (just look at the music, the story and the characters involved, so the chance is pretty high that most people find such movies enjoyable); but as for realism: In a real battle one does not see the bullets fly and the gore happens too quickly for the human eye; and the ending is ridiculous: Having some petty US infantry troopers resisting a large German tank attack.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook
Yesh, i r agree :P
Warfareful 1 year ago
@Warfareful: You should use standard English, when communicating with non native speakers like me; else I can only assume that you do agree with me.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook
I beg your pardon. Didn't mean any offence... :\ Either way, yes, I do agree. :)
Warfareful 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook - In Saving Private Ryan, the Americans do NOT "stop a heavy German tank attack." They get lucky and manage to blow the tracks off one German tank, and manage to lob molotov cocktails into an open-topped German armored vehicle. The other couple tanks with the Germans were pretty much unstoppable and the actions of the soldiers were useless. The tanks were only stopped when US fighter bombers arrived and smashed the tanks.
sdr24 1 year ago
@sdr24: Elaborating this does not help: The fact remains that this movie shows about ten American troopers repulsing a heavy German attack with dozens of infantry, mobile assault guns and heavy tanks; and that the tactical bombers arrive at the exact moment, when the US troopers are nearly defeated and have retreated to their Alamo position makes this scene all the more ridiculous; the German troops would have not blocked the Allied advance for two months if their troops were so easy to defeat.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook - It doesn't show them "repulsing" anything. It shows them ambushing a lot of infantry, getting lucky with a tank, and then getting slowly pushed back while the guys die off one by one. Then air power shows up and makes the difference, like it did all over the western front. You are simply exaggerating what the movie actually shows. Air superiority was a terrible decisive advantage for the Allies on the Western front - and they absolutely had it during D-Day.
sdr24 1 year ago
@sdr24: Nope, they lured Germans to their position with vehicle, so it is no ambush as the enemy was aware of their whereabouts; and if you do not find it infantile and of revolting mass appeal that the air force arrives just in time, not to early or to late to rescue the besieged heroes I cannot help you; but watch this movie: No air power helped here and though some allied goals were archived still there were bitter loses; and that is my point about modern war movies being to melodramatic...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook - (shrug) I guess I've got other things to get worked up about. A bit of drama doesn't bother me much. As long as it doesn't come at the expense of basic plausibility, works for me. And say whatever you want, I didn't find that fight all that implausible. I've read enough World War II history to know that what actually happened to the soldiers was often more far-fetched than anything cooked up in Hollywood.
sdr24 1 year ago
@sdr24: You can exit this discussion thus but what good is it to start such a discussion if one will declare it not important after a while?
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook The movies you refer to were made by Americans for Americans. They are released elsewhere for whatever income they can pull in. The Normandy landings ARE a big deal to us. If you don't like American war movies, DON'T WATCH THEM.
specom 1 year ago
@specom: Dear me! Have you Americans now respect for your English lackeys? Not only that they have to surrender their precious empire to you but now you deny them even the service they have done for you? Besides this movie has a clear focus on the English and the Americans play here a minor role (you can easily see that by the mass of the soldiers wearing the old multifunctional English helmet, to be used as soup plate, camber pot and head protection).
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@specom: And what the Americans consider the D-Day landing fuss to be is totally insignificant, the only thing that matters here is what impact it hand on the war and since Germany was already defeated (fighting a loosing battle against numerical far superior foes, with no hope to turn the tide of the war) it was very little.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook you're saying the english surrendered their empire to america?
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: Exactly; or have you never heard of Monsieur Churchill signing the Atlantic Charta in mid 1941, which marks the end of any foreign/colonial rule? If France would claim that her total defeat at the hands of Germany had crippled her so much, that she was unable to uphold her overseas empire anymore it would sound half creditable; but what excuse has England for losing all her colonies in the wake of World War II? And do not try to tell me that this was a voluntary act of grace!
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar
1. it was the British Empire not just England and i only referred to it as England orginally orginally because the original poster did.
2. I haven't heard of the Atlantic Charter so enlighten me.
3. "but what excuse has England for losing all her colonies in the wake of World War II?" you just said that Churchill signed the atlantic charter so why are you asking a question you've just answered?
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: First: England conquered Wales, Ireland and Scotland so the term Britain is a mere mockery and disguise for the English Empire. Second: If you have not heard about the Atlantic Charta you should do some reading about World War II as it states the war goals of the USA and her lackeys (England and her daughter states mostly) – but if you know about the original principles of the UN you know what the Atlantic Charta is all about; basically the principles of the American hegemony.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: Third: I just did elaborate that point as the English are suffering under many delusions! Geographically for example the seem to see themselves as Newfoundland, else one can not understand why they focus their entire foreign policy on the USA, instead of taking care for European affairs (no old English government would have allowed a thing like the EU to develop, due to the balance of power which was somewhat the Holy Grail of the English diplomacy for centuries).
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar ok but it still doesnt mean that britain surrendered its empire to america.
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: When England publicly agrees to a new order of the world in which she must necessarily lose her precious empire and puts her self at the mercy of outspoken anti-colonial powers such as the USA and the Soviet Union I think one can call it the surrender of the English empire; though Churchill had later some delusions that England was not bound to the Atlantic Charter at all but history proved him utterly wrong on his peevish assumption.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar britain volantarily gave up the countires in its empire to let them become independant. that is NOT surrendering it empire to america. for a start, surrendering its empire to USA would mean that america would take control of it instead, but it didnt.
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: Now this is strange: In his fancy public speeches Monsieur Churchill declared in 1940 expressly that he wanted to fight in order to preserve the English Empire; how came it than that the English so suddenly decided to disband their beloved empire? I hardly think that this is a coincidence and as for the American rule: Things like the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund are known to you? As by such tools the USA rules or better exploits the former European colonies today.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar yes i know of the IMF and WB. and sorry, but you still havent said how britains empire was surrendered to america.
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: Many times I have done that; just read my former comments to learn how. Short: England consented to the new world order, by which her colonies will become sooner or later independent, and by which global institutions are founded which are controlled by the Americans and via them the USA does rule the former English colonies as well as the English daughter states have become vassals of the USA (NATO and the like) and this is how England surrendered her empire to the USA.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar no you havent said it before, you were talking about other things. and you're wrong. world organiations like NATO and UN are democracies, with representitves and voting and the countriesin them are not ruled by the USA. the USA does not rule former BRITISH (not English) as they are now independant states. you're effectively saying that any country in an organisation that also has USA in it, is controlled by the USA.
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: I am not some sort of a political Jesus, so I cannot make the blind see. If you fail to see the American hegemony I can not show it to you. If you believe in the delusion of international democracy I cannot cure you; and if you think that countries like Libya or Mesopotamia are independent I can not show you that they are not; and if you do not recognize the European nations being the mere vassals of the USA I cannot show it to you; unless you try to explain the Suez crisis of 1956.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar i love how you think you're always right.
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: Thanks; but soberly considered I think I got some glimpse of knowledge when it comes to things like history, politics and philosophy (plus some other spheres which do not matter here); so I suppose that my views are based on some grounds and arguments and unless you can refute them I will uphold them; so feel free to explain me the workings behind the Suez Crisis of 1956 or why Monsieur Churchill lamented so bitterly that he could not preserve the English Empire.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar why the fuck would i know? theyve got nothing to do with what you originally said and why do you have to write is such a formal way? it's so fucking annoying.
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: Children may be reading this so you should not use the vulgar word for fornication in any case! While I did wonder for quite a while what is it that you would like to know of me, since I cannot make much sense of your replies; and I cannot help you: You English types may indulge in that awful thing called “Plain English” foreigners like myself will always prefer to express themselves in proper English; besides: You did first reply to me if I am not much deceived.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 9 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar yes i speak proper english as do foreign people that i know. its just that the english you use is way more formal than most people speak, whether english is their first language or not.
and btw, you replied to me originally.
ampthilluk 9 months ago
@ampthilluk: Nope, you did originally reply to my old and no abandoned channel GreatGrumbledook (which I had to quit in order to gave the internet folk a more clear hind on my female gender, as I was getting sick of being called guy or dude); while my English may be more formal indeed as I do orientate it on the language of English poets, historians and politicians as there are the English texts I tend to read; so it is not deliberately that I use such an English.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 9 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar why do you still chose to type like that just because you read it?
ampthilluk 9 months ago
@ampthilluk: Maybe because I like it? Or do you think I would read books I do not like?
FireEyedMaidOfWar 9 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar no i said why do you have to type in a certain way just cos you like books that write like that.
btw, if you like politics so much then why did you say you were glad there were "no dull politics or idle talk about humanitarian goals"?
ampthilluk 9 months ago
@ampthilluk: Because ever since the great Machiavelli politics are no longer bound to morale and religion to act as their tool to make the world as they want to have it! Ever since then the state is a sphere of its own, following its own laws like war or physics; and ever since it is known that those humanitarian nonsense is only a mask for political goals and ambitions or do you really think that the dull-brained Americans did sent their stooges England and France to Libya to do good there?
FireEyedMaidOfWar 9 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar "no longer bound to morale and religion" - good, because religion is just lies anyway.
"following its own laws like war or physics" - what's physics got to do with it?
"do you really think that the dull-brained Americans did sent their stooges England and France to Libya to do good there?" i don't know if you are aware of this but it's a well known fact that britain and france were the ones trying to help libya and trying to persuade other countries, not america.
ampthilluk 9 months ago
@ampthilluk: No blasphemy here (at least not with the restriction that modern religions like Christendom are based on lies but never ever slander the old Gods in my presence or I will invoke Machiavelli on it!); and physics has nothing to do with politics except that politics are bound to the laws of nature; but politics do work according to their own laws as well and to acquaint you with them I suppose you do read “The Prince” of Machiavelli for a start; but back to that Libyan folly.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 9 months ago
@ampthilluk: We will always have to come back to the Suez crisis of 1956 here: Do you think England and France did abandon the Suez Channel due to the American bidding in 1956 and are able to invade Libya in 2011 without having the American approval? Libya is a major oil country and the USA does not allow its mediocre vassals to meddle with them against its will; so I guess the whole fuss is pretty much like the American invasion of Cuba on the Bay of Pigs in 1961!
FireEyedMaidOfWar 9 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Invade Libya? NATO is launching air strikes at military targets because they are an oppressive government not because we want to invade, we're there supporting democracy with all things good and proper. But this isn't the first time America has bombed Libya, just the first time where it is justified.
PROkiller16 7 months ago
@PROkiller16: The foul Americans and not their vassal league is doing so (the Suez Crisis of 1956 may resolve any doubts if someone should think that France or even England are allowed to act still like they have done when they were great powers); and those Libyan rebels do not appear to me any more creditable than those fools the vile Americans did send to the Bay of Pigs on Cuba and their support in Libya seem to be so limited that they can do nothing without American air support.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 7 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar NATO, America is not that invested into Libya compared to someone like Germany. Mainly because we're on firing line if the rebels are crushed.
Seriously, they have made threats that they will attack Europe.
PROkiller16 7 months ago
@PROkiller16: But you are aware that the Americans are paying 2/3 of the war efforts and that France and England would be out of ammunition without their supplies? Besides the NATO is nothing more than the Corinthian League was for Macedon in Greece: The instrument of their military hegemony over Europe (the Russians had a similar pact a while ago); and the Libyan menaces are nonsense: They have no air force and no navy so Europe is out of danger.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 7 months ago
@PROkiller16: Though the real problems will start when the Libyan ruler is overthrown since the Americans usually make very poor choices when they install their puppet government in conquered countries; just think of the mass they produced in Mesopotamia or Bactria! So Europe will rather get a second Persia, meaning Mohammedan fanatics ruling the country, or a second Somalia, including the pirate problem and with unrestrained illegal immigration than a decent state in her neighbourhood.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 7 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar Not really. Well think about the splash effect, driven with a victory and war economy Libya would get cocky and spill over to neighbours and from that Europe could be threaten.
It's highly improbable but the chance remains and we like democracy.
PROkiller16 7 months ago
@PROkiller16: Well, the possibility that the current Libyan leader will spark another wave of fanatical Saracens and Moors invading Europe is very low; and one thing is sure already: There will be no democracy in Libya no matter who prevails as the Americans use there the same religious fanatics they have used in Bactria against the Russians and not even their parliament wants to supply them with arms; so if you like democracy you should journey to Greece and visit Athens its birthplace instead.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 7 months ago
@PROkiller16 -- Why do you think the US goaded NATO into becoming Enforcer for the Global Elites, Central Banking Syndicates, Corporate interests, MIC franchises, narco/drug cartels & assorted Gangster Racketeers' rigged-game Vulture Capitalists? Libya (like Cuba & Venezuela) had local representative democracy, free Medical care, housing, jobs, education, vibrant economy. The very LAST thing any nation 'liberated' by the west can expect is self-determinism, a fair shake, economic/social justice.
starmanskye 5 months ago
@starmanskye No one made them the enforcer, if anything Europe is. I don't like the Americans, hell few people I do actually care for them.
When you fight the civilians fight against a dicator the world tends to side with the civilians, although neither side is very nice.
PROkiller16 5 months ago
@ampthilluk hahahahahahahaha, you talk so much rubbish, america has never had an empire and probably never will, Britain gave independence to countries that wanted it or because we needed to, we never gave it to the americans at all, have you never heard of the commonwealth? As far as I'm aware off, america has never won a war on its own two feet, they have always has another country backing them.
8Ball2221 2 months ago
@ampthilluk And before you rudely interrupt a valid history lesson, no america didn't win the American War of Independence of its own two feet, you had the backing from the French, Spanish and i think the Dutch. The last war the British won on its own two feet was the Falklands war in the 1980s.
8Ball2221 2 months ago
@8Ball2221 what you having a go at me for? im english
ampthilluk 2 months ago
@FireEyedMaidOfWar thanks for not answering the question. i know quite a bit about WW2 anyway but i hadnt heard of that charter. (why do you call it charta). and am i right in thinking the charter gave permission for colonised countries to become independant states?
ampthilluk 10 months ago
@ampthilluk: Maybe because I am no native speaker and did not learn English at school (so grammar mistakes will continue to haunt my texts)? As for the Atlantic Charter: Originally it was planed that indeed the colonies should be put under the mandate of the UNO but Monsieur Churchill managed to prevent it, else the victory day celebration would have been cancelled; but it was laid down that self-determination of the people should be now the founding principle of international law, I may quote:
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
"Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;"
So you see: This marks the end of all traditional colonial empires; since it is expressly said in the preface of the Atlantic Charter that these princples should be vaild world wide and are not limited to Europe. So you see this leads to the UN Charter straight.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 10 months ago
Thanks. Hard to see an epic war film these days.
sisspymaster 1 year ago
Great movie!! Thnx for posting!
What I really liked about this movie is that the german soldiers actually talk german, not english with a strange accent :D And that the dutch actaully talk dutch. Feels very historicly correct.
Aldo the start of the movie where it claims that up untill D-day the war was going Hilters way. not so historicly correct and obvious propaganda, the Russians had allready defeated the bulk of the Nazi forces.
Little detail Hollywood liked to forget in those days...
amsterdamned333 1 year ago