The main problem facing the allies was, indeed, a lack of supplies. this is the reason Montgomery and Brook were so against the 'broad front' strategy adopted by Eisenhower. If you remember M was such an advocate of the 'single thrust' he offered to serve UNDER THE AMERICAN GENERAL appointed to lead such a thrust.
At the planning meeting at St Paul's in April, Montgomery explaned that the British and Canadians would draw the majority of the German armour onto themselves in order to facilitate an American breakout. Bradley stated this action was 'self sacrificing'. 7 of the 9 German armoured divisions finished up fighting the British (600 of the 710 German tanks).
He (M) also stated that he expected the allies to reach Paris on D Day +90: they got there on D Day +84
@DeanMonio check out "cross of iron"(world war two eastern front) as well.Oh and add to that Waltz with Bashir (lebanon) & when the wind blows (nuclear war).
Oh, and it isn't just the Russians who credit their invasion as putting the peace option thru the Japanese government in 1945 - the Japanese agree that it was the Soviet declaration of war and the thought of a Soviet occupation force that finally broke the back of Japanese militarists and allowed the peace faction to accept Truman's "conditional" surrender. Remember folks 150,000 people were incinarated in the Tokyo firebombings to no affect on the militarists.
@ryoushii Em maybe. When the Emperor addressed the Japanese people for the first time ever...to announce the surrender he said it was because of one thing and one thing only: the enemy (USA) had developed and used a terrible new weapon--A Bomb. He DID NOT mention the Russian declaration of war or the Red Army in Manchuria at all.
An object lesson in listening to intelligence, even if it says something you don't like. Both the Dutch and British intelligence sources were screaming that the Germans were far stronger than Montgomery wished to believe, but were ignored in favor of magical wishful thinking. And of course, Montgomery screwed up the campaign upto Market-Garden, in particular capturing Antwerp WITHOUT securing the sea approaches to the port. Market Garden was just his crowning incompetence.
Great war movie I've seen it many times...I think the biggest mistake was thinking was under estimating Germans they were on the run but still had plenty of fight left in them. Of course bad weather and several mishaps didn't help either.
Ironically the wisest person in this movie was the Polish general Sosabowski. Sure Urqhart had his doubts but he followed through. Sosabowski however knew how it would play out. and in the end he got blamed.
@Trashcansam123 funny, isn't it? He was blamed until some year in 60's when he died (as the poor fellow in fact). this movie apart from else was about admitting his true part in the operation. THat's why Hackman is so convincing.
One of the best WW2 war movies EVER made. If you respect good filmmaking, go and BUY this movie. You'll enjoy it more on your t.v. with all the clang and roar of artillery, tanks, and aircraft. For military/history buffs, the battle scenes ring true and this movie IS based on actual events. This movie is part of my WW2 collection and cannot recommend this movie highly enough! Regards from Mike (a WW2 buff and B.A., History) "Monty's folly" indeed!
Market-Garden was a stupid idea; the only reason it came to fruition was that Montgomery was steaming over the fact that the US was now the "Senior Partner" in The West; he demanded that he be given a mission and this mess was the result.
There's a website that lists him as one of the ten worst military leaders in history; "Market-Garden" is what nailed this down; what an ass!
Good lord people stop arguing and watch the damn movie. Yes, it's unfortunate the Eastern Front has not received the attention it deserves, but it's not like the Western Front was a cakewalk either. How about we say that a great alliance of nations was forged and all put forth a tremendous effort to bring down the Nazis. Can we agree on that?
@SexualToasTi How old are you? 12? Sit down and be quiet. And apologize for your rudeness. I would have agreed with you other than your filthy language. Believe it or not, mature people don't appreciate it. Be thankful someone was kind enough to put this up and stop whinning.
Just enjoy the facts that u dnt have to go through all that suffering that so many did, stop ur petty fighting ova " I Know more than u , these was that, they did this" n all ur other bullshit ur fighting about. LEST WE FORGET but theres no need to fight ova facts just up n watch the movie
Something that is never considered in the Patton/Montgomery argument is that Patton commanded the American 3rd Army; Montgomery commanded the 21st Army GROUP. They were completely different ranks and had different responsibilities. The British equivalent of Patton was Dempsey (who - never heard of him!!) the commander of the British 2nd Army.
To state that an army group was competing for supplies with one army is ridiculous.
@14067913 They had different ranks and levels of command but you are missing the crucial factor of public perception--the American public regarded Patton (rightly or wrongly) as the American general at least in the field even though nearly ever other 3 and 4 star commanded bigger armies. Plenty of American generals werent happy about that either--the public perception. Besides the narrator didnt have to single out Patton anyways--Monty was widely disliked by nrly all American commanders.
@kentamitchell Yes nearly all American commanders,,,some like Gavin liked Monty and said so in his memoirs--said Monty was the most professional soldier of the war he had met..others like Clark learned how to handle Monty and didnt have the kind of conflicts others did with him. So by nearly I meant like 90 percent but it is worth noting a small number got on with him albeit very small. I dont get the part about his mother--dont know what you mean
@kentamitchell again dont know how his mom fits into anything i said but it is interesting he wasnt on good terms with his mom...maybe that explains a lot. I know he had a relationship with a young boy in his retirement that many people felt was odd.
@14067913 I might add that the Germans regarded Patton as the American general as well--as the movie/book states--rightly or wrongly. As far as they were concerned there was no one else.
@14067913 Hodges, Patch, etc and obviously Bradley all commanded bigger armies than Patton's 3rd amry yet for the american public--Patton and 3rd army was it...to the annoyance of a lot of other American commanders I might add. The fact that few people even knew who the other American commander were says it all even though the others had larger commands. So in that sense the narrator is correct.
The Americans never give credit to Montgomery for his overall command of Operation Overlord...and his overall command of ground forces in Normandy up to the breakout....
@14067913 In context they were competing. 3rd Army (and Bradley's Army Group as a whole) were consuming absurd amounts of fuel, which was harder to bring in, much more than 21st Army Group, while 21st Army Group, especially 2nd Army, was consuming immense amounts of ammunition and replacement soldiers. There was, quite literally not enough of the critical supplies to keep both going. Whether Patton or Montgomery were right is another matter entirely.
Primo: I know Montgomery may be a hero for many people, but you what? Fuck him for what he did to general Sosabowski after Market Garden. Patton was ten times better commander and also better man than Montgomery.
Secundo: To all morons who think it were Russians who saved the world from Hitler - fuck you too!
It was Stalin and USSR that were nazi allies for many years prior to war and at the beginning of it (recommend reading something about Molotov–Ribbentrop pact)
Eisenhower had three idle airborne divisions (17th, 82nd, and 101st) on his hands, so he encouraged his top generals to come up with a plan to use them, making Montgomery's Market Garden not something he came up with out of the blue. The key was the British tanks making it to Arnhem before the Brits and Poles there were wiped out. Not a good idea because when the Allies left for Sicily after North Africa, the two things they left behind were the British tanks and a Brazilian fighter squadron.
Roosevelt all but promised Stalin a "second front" in 1942, then delayed D Day until 1944, but all the time there was a second front - the B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, and other planes that day and night obliterated France and Germany. 65,000 American airmen died in the Allied bombing campaign, as well as about 40,000 Brits and their cohorts. German civilian deaths - about 970,000. Russia did about 85% of the ground fighting, but the Western nations controlled the air, which greatly helped Russia.
@SabraStiehl The allied bombing campaign was such a goof, that at the end oif the war 85 percent of the German war industry was still operational and in full swing. What those planes were very clever against ,was civilian buildings and people. Nittdorf aiming instrument and everything.
@Gheorgyi Pretty much total nonsense; German industrial output finally fell in late 1944; yes, I know you'll say that the peak year of German industrial output was 1944 but there is no way to measure how much higher it would have been if it hadn't been for bombing by the UK and US.
also, the Germans had no manpower or at least time to train replacements for all the equipment they were still turning out; their manpower losses in the field were too high.
@lopido Some would argue that the participation of the US in Europe (Asia would be an entirely different matter) wasn't all that important from a military standpoint, anyway.
What is NOT arguable is the industrial might of this nation; our ability to turn out war goods was incredibly staggering.
Please consider that the Soviet Union lost more dead civilians alone, in Leningrad than the Western Allies did in combat fighting on ALL fronts.
@lopido In many ways that was true both because of the Communist government but also because the USSR just wasn't as industrialized so they had to "do it all" (well, not quite) simply with not only manpower but womanpower, too.
By way of comparison, the US which lost 250,000 soldiers in combat (vs 24 MIILION total USSR dead) 1/3 of those men died in aircraft mostly as bomber crewmen; that's a lot of (then) hi-tech hardware and there was huge amounts of it.
@SabraStiehl 01. Your numbers for dead Western Allied BOMBER airmen is rather low; the Brits lost, DEAD, nearly 60,000 bomber crewmen alone; the US about 80,000; you are correct in your statistic of dead Germans by Western Allied bombing.
And this is KILLED IN ACTION bomber crewmen; the amount of hardware that was put up by the Western Allies to sustain such losses was fantastic; regarding the US, this is about ONE THIRD of all combat deaths on all fronts in WW2; for the Brits it was about 28%.
@SabraStiehl 02. The Allies HAD a 2nd front; what the hell did Stalin think North Africa, Sicily and Italy were?
Also, Stalin should have invaded Manchuria after "Kursk" or at least should have done so on the same day as "D-Day" Stalin only came into Asia after Hiroshima was nuked; fuck 'em!
The USSR faced 100 divisions; the Western Allies faced 60 and they were of lesser, overall quality; many more SS Divisions on The Eastern Front.
@SatchmoSings Yo again Louis. Apparently for decades Russian history books ignored the A-bomb and put down Japan's defeat to Russia's invasion of Manchuria in August '45!
And we have all these Western "revisionist" historians here rewriting all this history of what happened in The West!
I'm also sure that none of these Russian history books talk about the 250,000 Japanese soldiers dragooned into "The Gulag" let alone the 350,000 Germans they also did this too.
I must say that what the Germans achieved in 1944 when they were short on fuel (pretty much meant stationary and defensive warfare was the only option), Germany was in ruins and millions were already dead and injured, was nothing short of amazing.
Then again it was a question of life and death for the Germans since Hitler ordered them to fight to the last man and not retreat. Hitler would rather see Germany utterly destroyed than surrendering to the "jew-controlled enemies".
I see the argument still is on about the Soviet contribution to the war. Simple fact, Hitler's only chance was a fast knockout in 1941, something that was most likely beyond the reach of the Wehrmacht anyway. The thing to remember is ALL the German victories of the war were fundamentaly TACTICAL, NOT STRATEGIC. HItler needed to do the same thing that Napoleon wanted to to do in 1812 - A quick political war. What he got was what Napoleon got - a national war.
FYI, The British severely underestimated the Japanese. They believed the Japanese were mentally incapable of strategic ability and comprehension of simple logic. They also believed that the average Japanese height was too short to be able to competently pilot aircraft. They could not have been more wrong. The loss of Burma, and several other territories dealt a serious blow to British military prestige. The Americans did the same at Pearl Harbor.
@th4Guy77 You are basically correct; one of the most important wars of the early 20th Century was the Russo-Japanese War; you'd think the world would have learned something about the Japanese from that war.
I'm 17 and love war movies, I prefer like Vietnam and ww2 but I've almost seen all of them now i soon have to convert to modern day which I'm sad about
@ZerkPureFTW Try "The Blue Max" from the late 1960s; it's a WW1 movie with really great staged aerial combat with no computer generated images; it also says a lot about "class warfare."
Also, on "Youtube" is "The Lost Battalion."
But if you can stomach a film from 1930, try "All Quiet On The Western Front;" clips are on youtube including an absolutely fantastic battle sequence.
I heard that the U.S. soldiers enjoyed the Destruction of Japs Corpses.Actually, Japs ware crazy. But, in any countries, Soldiers can be crazy and egregious murders.
If not, they are sometimes useless at war. To decide which soldiers were horrible monsters between Wehrmacht and Imperial Army is itself nonesense and ridiculous.
The Nazis were monsters, get that straight, civilized?Tell that to a Jew or Gipsy and all others the Nazis slaughtered! Japanese were no different what they did to the British and Aussie prisoners...etc.There may be some merciful individuals but the main polices of these 2 countries was to dominate and rid of what they considered undesirables. Oh shit......isn't the current pope an former-Nazi?
@hamogunjafarmer yeah but the avarage german soldier wasnt by definition a nazi not all germans were nazi s most of the german army were simple soldiers doing their jobs and this comes from a dutchy
The only reason Market Garden failed cause Monty's forces failed to reach the bridges the airborne captured days ago and supplies fell into German hands. This was a fail timing operation.
The book is so much better than the movie and a lot more accurate. Eisenhower didn't have any pressure from his superiors. Monty pitched him this hair brained operation and Eisenhower fell for it. He admitted this to C. Ryan when interviewed. Patton had to halt his advance. He was 100 miles ahead of all the Allied armies when they put Market Garden into action. It's idiotic to hold back your best General. Also the Allied high command ignored all the intelligence coming from the Arnhem area.
Definitely - the bigger portion of battles in Africa, Italy and France were - as compared with the eastern front - simply a joke. But there are some that can match it. If you think about Market Garden, The Bulge, Cassino and Hürtgen, they can make you shiver as much as the average eastern scenarios do.
@ross79745 Seems to me that in Asia this way of conducting a war was much more traditional than it was in the western world then, but not only for the Japanese but also for the Chinese, Malayans, Indians and the colonial troops used by the French, British, Dutch in general.
@ross79745 no... the germans could be just as brutal as the japanese. the only reason they werent on the western front is quite honestly, they had few opportunities after 1942, because the western allies pretty much won most of the battles, and because the nazis considered the west 'civilized.'
@dchris1990 Have you ever watched Bridge On The River Kwai? May be hollywood, but alot of truth in it. British troops went into Japanese concentration camps at about 12/13 stone, and came out about 7. Plus the banzai attackers, the charges, the booby traps, the Savageness of the Germans is a complete joke towards the allies.
@ross79745 The SS was brutal, not the regular German army. All Japanese could be brutal because they were pretty severely brainwashed and tough, strong fighters.
@ross79745 Alllies were pritty bad as well only it wasn't told because then they would lose a big part of the support for the war.... allies were bad as well i hope you guys will understand that now as well
@laurencelikestopgun russias killed more jews than germans?????????............ and btw the allies sailed under medicflags while they were sending weapons to their front.... and then suddenly opend fire when there was a gemran patrol... those are warcrimes as well......
@ross79745 the germans also respected the west much more than they did the jew-bolshevik slavs. In East Europe they did HORRIBLE massacres, genocide, and... oh come on do i really have to tell you that the Nazis were the bad guys?! Really?
@ross79745 the Soviets were the Allies. And most of the Jews came from the Soviet Union. So yea, to the 'western' allies, the Wehrmacht was decent, most of the time (save for a lot of B26 pilots who never came home from italian prison camps).... but in the east, they were as bad monsters as the Japanese... sorry, but i'm standing by my statement....
Some of your pointed out the japs, and the japs had their mass killings to of chineses, indonesians, burnameses and many more, totaly oer 18 million murderd ciwliians 1937 - 1945. However thats unfortanley not as much noticed as the 6 million jews today, the phrase "The victors write history" well tha japs los?! So why arent their crimes shown to the public as much as the german crimes?
True, Stalin murderd over 39 million russians and german pows/allies of germany, the japaneses murderd over 18 million chineses and other east asians.
The germans murderd 6 million jews and al in all about 13 million people includong other ciwilains and POW.
So many countires did horrible crimes, but the media today makes it look that the holocaust was the only crime and thats a shame becuase all vitims of ww2 should be remembered.
@JSLegoMaster ...and how many civilians the us have killed from 1945 to today will never be known. same goes for china. which shows, that the star wars world never existed, where the good ones are just good and the bad ones just bad.
Because that was the "Generalplan Ost" for the nazis in which they envisioned a future "super-Germany" which would expand greatly on the captured territories in the east. As far as Hitler and the nazis were concerned THIS was one of the main objectives of the war. After all the jews had been exterminated we'd see a much larger planned extermination of the people in Poland and the Soviet Union. For these people the war was truly a struggle for life or death. They knew this.
The banzai charges are the most primitive and useless kind of tactic used in ww2, the japaneses didnt even shoot their riffles when charging, but trying to only use the bayonet/sword. I think if the japs would use their soliders in defensive warfare agsint the allies after midway and not making useless counterattacks ending in fields of dead japs (Liek saipan) thy would make their own losses far less and eventually hold the americans off
@JSLegoMaster They NEVER would hold the Americans off. Admiral Yamamoto knew it full well before they even attacked Pearl Harbor, he went to school at Harvard and had two attache postings to Washington, DC. He knew the industrial capacity of the United States and that Japan would be crushed. If they had stuck to defensive tactics, they would have inflicted more casualties on the US, but would have been crushed just the same without question.
@JSLegoMaster 3. Wait and build up forces until you can win. (I know Japan attacked because they wanted natural resources to build forces without US meddling)
I think you fail to recognise that they didnt use these tactics for any strategic benefit. These tactics were the result of the idea of honour that was drilled into the minds of the japs from an early age. As far as they were concerned, the man who died charging at the enemy is more of a hero than the man who killed hundreds of men from inside a pillbox and then bugged out to live and fight another day
The officers were in two groups. Most followed the idea of an honourable death being better than a cowardly victory. Others (such as the man who commanded the japanese at iwo jima, I have forgotten his name) tried to make their men stop the suicidal charges, but just couldnt control the men to make them stop it entirely
I got your point, but the best thing for the japaneses would be to let some european (maybe their german allies) teach them about infantry tactics such as the indians, they learned from the british and were very sucessfull in the desert campaigns.
@Jagertal Yea, im sick of even our country the (USA) I cant believe we still have racist fucks all over. but mainly in the bible belt. The southern racists should go into concebntration camps. It would save us a lot on spam and spitting tobacco. Long live true blood tho!
@newonet But tell me - what has this to do with the manner of conducting war then? And regarding the "Bible belt": I`ve never been in the United States, but learned much about it in several History books. So I believe you mean the area south of the so called "Mason-Dixon-Line", don`t you? Nevertheless I heard about some bible-hardened regions in the north either, e.g. Wisconsin.
@andrehstewart: I think you're forgetting that for the first two years of the war, Russia was Nazi Germany's biggest ally. It was the British and Commonwealth nations who stood against Hitler. Besides, Stalin murdered more of his people than the Nazis ever managed to kill.
I saw this film when it first came out in the old Odeon in Renfield Street, a listed building for which an alternative use has still not yet been found. But this film nowadays looks very unrealistic and inauthentic compared to Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.
Guys shut the fuck up and enjoy the movie with its fantastic music and talented actors for gods sake I think to myself how much we have lost in talent of musicians and actors so just shut your traps and chill.
D day was not a saviour day. They landed when the russian have done all the work. And still the west could not cope fully with the war. Russians won the war. The west just waited on the side to save their skin.
@andrehstewart I strongly disagree, who defeated the Japanese? The Allies defeated the Germans in North Africa, Sicily and France it was only because Berlin was closer to the Russians that they won it.
Then you'd know that 80% of the casaulties of the German army was on the Eastern Front. Hitler knew himself that the only way he could possibly win the war was to establish continental superiority AND seize the oil fields in the Kaukasus (which he failed).
North Africa was a secondary front for the German Army and Hitler wouldn't have bothered with Africa at all, if not Mussolini was getting driven out by the British. The same thing happened in Greece.
@SteveSpicerPortsmuth Good God, some people like to get on their high horses. My great grandfather, having escaped from Dunkirk and watched his brother get killed must be turning in his grave. All the Brits and Americans that died fighting for our future, to then say it was totally the Russians that won it. Disgraceful.
@SpareMomentStudios Sickening, isn't it? I'll just leave these people to their "facts". Britain and American soldiers died for nothing if the Russians had it all. R.I.P freedom fighters, now unrecognised because of all the people that say Russian won the WHOLE war.
@SpareMomentStudios it may indeed be "disgracefull" but the fact is that "between" 75% and 80% of the German army was destroyed on the Eastern front.Operation Bagration in the summer of 1944 alone involved more men and casulties than the entire D-day operation put together.That is of course NOT in anyway to suggest that the lives of some allies were more or less in value than others BUT when it comes to cold hard statistics the USSR paid a higher price and sacrificed more soldiers in WWII.
On D-day there were 60 German divisions in France, compared to over 230 German divisions tied down on the huge Eastern Front trying to hold the advancing Red Army back. Where was the war lost for Germany again? Hollywood wants you to think Germany lost it in France in 1944, when they had already lost millions in the East. On D-day the Soviets were already close to the Polish border and had driven out the Germans from most of the Soviet territory.
Here's something you won't hear in Hollywood movies. The Chinese sacrificed 10 million of their own to fight the Japanese in Manchuria (part of China which Japan invaded). Half of the Imperial Japanese Army was bogged down in Manchuria striking down both the Chiang-Kei-Shek led Chinese nationalists and the Chinese communists. The Filippinos also provided a tremendous headache for the Japanese invaders.
The Japenese never had a fraction of the well armed forces the Germans had.
@andrehstewart If the western allies wouldn't have held britain and put such pressure on the germans, the soviets would have been overrun in 1942. The germans came very close to taking the entire soviet union on several occasions. The only reason they never achieved that was because the british and american forces were winning in north africa and the germans didn't have enough resources to fight effectively on both fronts.
All allied forces did great. None could have won without the others.
@Hanske90 Completely right there, I totaly agree, the allies´ victory in World War II was a joint effort, everyone did their part and shed their share of blood.
@andrehstewart where to begin with this non sense? first the Soviets did not have to wage a global war--they didn't have to secure the atlantic, fight the Japanese in the Pacific, supply dozens of countries with matierai (incuding the USSR) they didn't have to fight a naval war, they didn't have to fight a strategic air war, they didn;t knock out German oil produciton--which cost the germans big time, one could on and on and on...
@andrehstewart You stalin tried to say something like this to churchill in early 43 when the latter told stalin there would be no 2nd front in 43 and stalin started complaining that the British and Americans were letting the russians do all the fighting and Churchill replied: Britiian was figthing germany a whole year ALONE when russia and Stalin were friends with Hitler and Germany and not just friends but actually supplying the German war machined with huge ammoiunts of raw materials.
@andrehstewart Waited on their side to save their skin--you mean the way Joe Stalin did while he was at peace with Hitler, best friends with Hitler, actually supplying the nazi war machine with raw materials from russia while Britian and France fought the Germans and then ENgland alone? You mean that kinda of standing on the side lines?
@andrehstewart I might add churchill warned Stalin that their intellegence strongly indicated that germany was about to attack russia and with what effect? Stalin ignored the warning even though it was confirmed by Soviet's own sources!
@andrehstewart Hee..Hee..Hee..Alright, comrade, believe the story that was first told to the Russians by your Uncle Joe...oops..I am sorry...I mean The Gloriously Brave Fearlest Leader Comrade Joseph Stalin. Keep on believing that you Russians defeated the Third Reich all by yourselves. The British were just sitting around having tea and crumpets, and we Americans were just getting drunk and having sex with British and French women. Alright. Okay. Whatever you say, comrade. ;)
@andrehstewart if the United Kingdom, America and the other western allies did not put pressure on the Germans, they would have overrun you, not to mention the Japanese
Really? Allied troops fought in many, many countries from 1939 to 1945. The British fought alone for years before the Russians even became engaged. Both the US and the UK sent aid of all kinds to Russia. The Russians certainly made the biggest contribution and sacrifice, but there were lots of countries and individuals who played huge parts in the final victory.
@andrehstewart The only reason the Reds got to Berlin first is because most of the best German divisions (Panzer Lehr, LSSAH, etc.) were deployed against the Allies in the West. After the Normandy landings Hitler grew increasingly disinterested in the Eastern Front and German Armies West got the lion's share of the last German armaments production.
@andrehstewart only thing that defeated germany was hitler himself. read it up, hear what folks of that time had to say about it and dont take everything for granted that you saw in hollywood movies or call of duty. germany could easily have won the war.
@andrehstewart russia won the war? are you fucking kidding me..
russia helped germany taking poland and couldve bin easily be different if russia was up against the allies. the only reason russian helped the allies was by the statement. the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
@SparkyHistoryMan I know, I mean have military historians run out of topics? strange to me that it hasn't caught more attention although I am not familiar with the British publications, Ryan was an American as well...that should add a certain insult to injury. I suspect one reasonOMG doesn't get the attention it deserves from historians is that it was such a complicated operation and the outcome--why it floped--it so debatable.
@SparkyHistoryMan Well these Hollywood actors all look alike so it is easy to mix them up...right I am sure you will like Ryan's book--strange, we have a million books on D Day, and lots of just about every battle in WWII but only one major book on Market Garden...
@SparkyHistoryMan Actually it was Redford in that role; O'Neil played Gen Gavin--probably the only American general who got on well with Monty I might add.
@555paint I haven't seen the Kershaw book---sounds very interesting, thanks for the tip. S. Ambrose said he took one look at the road that 20th Corps was assigned and concluded immediately that was the fatal flaw in the plan...narrow, elevated etc..I don't know if that is it or if that is one of several factors....
Well, try to accept the movie for what it is: entertainment. But I strongly encourage any and all to research the facts on your own. The cooperation of the varied allies was not as simple and straight forward as it is portrayed today. The Poles pretty much got the unpleasant end of the stick at just about every turn in the ETO in the names of convenience and diplomacy.
@jaymoe67 Well the movie projects itself as more than entertainment but also a grand statement on war--thus the pretentious narration at the start. As far as research goes I have read Ryan's book several times over the years partly because I think it is a great case study in failure anaylsis. As far as the Poles go--yeah I didnt doubt or imply that they weren't screwed. All I said was that the movie confines the inner Allied tensions to them alone--more or less ignoring American-Brit issues
@SparkyHistoryMan OK, Actually it was Robert Redford who did the hail mary crossing....I wasnt aware however as you say that it was switched from a British to an American action. That is a serious flaw on the movies part. I hate it when that happens--probably meant to appeal to an American audience. On the whole I personally thought the movie was only OK for a variety of reasons...Ryan's book is far superior and deserved a better movie.
@SparkyHistoryMan Oh, OK, I thought you were saying the movie is a USA view of Market-Garden whereas I thought it was a fair assesment from both sides, perhaps even a bit pro British. If anything the harshest crits comes (in this movie) from the Poles. Perhaps that was a device--they were made to stand in for USA crit. But anyways as far as inner Allied warfare went I thought the movie was pretty even handed. (Band of Bros for example is much harsher on the British)
This has been flagged as spam show
The main problem facing the allies was, indeed, a lack of supplies. this is the reason Montgomery and Brook were so against the 'broad front' strategy adopted by Eisenhower. If you remember M was such an advocate of the 'single thrust' he offered to serve UNDER THE AMERICAN GENERAL appointed to lead such a thrust.
14067913 2 hours ago
Re D Day and Normandy:
At the planning meeting at St Paul's in April, Montgomery explaned that the British and Canadians would draw the majority of the German armour onto themselves in order to facilitate an American breakout. Bradley stated this action was 'self sacrificing'. 7 of the 9 German armoured divisions finished up fighting the British (600 of the 710 German tanks).
He (M) also stated that he expected the allies to reach Paris on D Day +90: they got there on D Day +84
14067913 3 days ago
Thank you for posting the whole movie, really appreciate it.
keepeiretidy1916 3 weeks ago
Want to find out more about gen. Sosabowski and his brigade? Watch 'The General's Honour' on YT.
gwiazdozbiorCentaura 4 weeks ago
I heard about this movie in cadets.
GAMINGgrungey 1 month ago
There's more awesome actors in this one movie than in the whole world today. Sad.
aselmac 1 month ago 2
@aselmac too true - I counted at least 10 great actors!
revol148 1 month ago
omg thank you!
jack16895 2 months ago
Sound is much to soft.
8091pinewood 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great Arnhem facts clip is at link below;
watch?v=WgG0rBvBD74
slizzler1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google "PARACHUTE 2 CLUB". Genuine comments and photos from guys who have served in 2 PARA,
Whatever81417 3 months ago
This is the movie that got me interested in World War 2 !!!
jermster17 3 months ago
...one of my favorite war movies, the other one is "Platoon"...both with outstanding cast of actors.
DeanMonio 3 months ago
@DeanMonio check out "cross of iron"(world war two eastern front) as well.Oh and add to that Waltz with Bashir (lebanon) & when the wind blows (nuclear war).
revol148 1 month ago
CAN SOMEONE UPLOAD THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE
50TNCSA 3 months ago
Oh, and it isn't just the Russians who credit their invasion as putting the peace option thru the Japanese government in 1945 - the Japanese agree that it was the Soviet declaration of war and the thought of a Soviet occupation force that finally broke the back of Japanese militarists and allowed the peace faction to accept Truman's "conditional" surrender. Remember folks 150,000 people were incinarated in the Tokyo firebombings to no affect on the militarists.
ryoushii 3 months ago
@ryoushii Em maybe. When the Emperor addressed the Japanese people for the first time ever...to announce the surrender he said it was because of one thing and one thing only: the enemy (USA) had developed and used a terrible new weapon--A Bomb. He DID NOT mention the Russian declaration of war or the Red Army in Manchuria at all.
555paint 4 weeks ago
An object lesson in listening to intelligence, even if it says something you don't like. Both the Dutch and British intelligence sources were screaming that the Germans were far stronger than Montgomery wished to believe, but were ignored in favor of magical wishful thinking. And of course, Montgomery screwed up the campaign upto Market-Garden, in particular capturing Antwerp WITHOUT securing the sea approaches to the port. Market Garden was just his crowning incompetence.
ryoushii 3 months ago
Great war movie I've seen it many times...I think the biggest mistake was thinking was under estimating Germans they were on the run but still had plenty of fight left in them. Of course bad weather and several mishaps didn't help either.
whiskeyify 4 months ago
Ironically the wisest person in this movie was the Polish general Sosabowski. Sure Urqhart had his doubts but he followed through. Sosabowski however knew how it would play out. and in the end he got blamed.
Trashcansam123 4 months ago
@Trashcansam123 funny, isn't it? He was blamed until some year in 60's when he died (as the poor fellow in fact). this movie apart from else was about admitting his true part in the operation. THat's why Hackman is so convincing.
tomenicus 2 months ago
@SDHVolyne
"kaum vorhanden"
ykyr 4 months ago
I really like war movies. Thanks for creating your channel. (former Marine)
mmfmmf332 4 months ago
My English grandfather was in the battle of Arnhem.
Postpunk781 4 months ago
One of the best WW2 war movies EVER made. If you respect good filmmaking, go and BUY this movie. You'll enjoy it more on your t.v. with all the clang and roar of artillery, tanks, and aircraft. For military/history buffs, the battle scenes ring true and this movie IS based on actual events. This movie is part of my WW2 collection and cannot recommend this movie highly enough! Regards from Mike (a WW2 buff and B.A., History) "Monty's folly" indeed!
WarriorPoet01 5 months ago
That guy looks like harry potter
Hytjeie 5 months ago
Market-Garden was a stupid idea; the only reason it came to fruition was that Montgomery was steaming over the fact that the US was now the "Senior Partner" in The West; he demanded that he be given a mission and this mess was the result.
There's a website that lists him as one of the ten worst military leaders in history; "Market-Garden" is what nailed this down; what an ass!
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
Good lord people stop arguing and watch the damn movie. Yes, it's unfortunate the Eastern Front has not received the attention it deserves, but it's not like the Western Front was a cakewalk either. How about we say that a great alliance of nations was forged and all put forth a tremendous effort to bring down the Nazis. Can we agree on that?
squamish4244 5 months ago
NO MORE CANDY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thetransformerX 5 months ago
I DON'T WANT ANY FUCKING CANDY FOR FUCKS SAKE YOU CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SexualToasTi 6 months ago
@SexualToasTi How old are you? 12? Sit down and be quiet. And apologize for your rudeness. I would have agreed with you other than your filthy language. Believe it or not, mature people don't appreciate it. Be thankful someone was kind enough to put this up and stop whinning.
Songsmirth 5 months ago
my father played in this movie. sean oneal wasn't a nice guy...just some sissy.
IDONTGETTHEPOINT 6 months ago
Just enjoy the facts that u dnt have to go through all that suffering that so many did, stop ur petty fighting ova " I Know more than u , these was that, they did this" n all ur other bullshit ur fighting about. LEST WE FORGET but theres no need to fight ova facts just up n watch the movie
keifydog 6 months ago
Something that is never considered in the Patton/Montgomery argument is that Patton commanded the American 3rd Army; Montgomery commanded the 21st Army GROUP. They were completely different ranks and had different responsibilities. The British equivalent of Patton was Dempsey (who - never heard of him!!) the commander of the British 2nd Army.
To state that an army group was competing for supplies with one army is ridiculous.
14067913 6 months ago 6
@14067913 general admiral
aaron654lo 6 months ago
@14067913
Yeah it should say Montgomery vs. Bradley. They hated each other as well and equaled each other in rank and command.
hannibalcaesar3 4 months ago in playlist A Bridge Too Far Part 1-19
@14067913 They had different ranks and levels of command but you are missing the crucial factor of public perception--the American public regarded Patton (rightly or wrongly) as the American general at least in the field even though nearly ever other 3 and 4 star commanded bigger armies. Plenty of American generals werent happy about that either--the public perception. Besides the narrator didnt have to single out Patton anyways--Monty was widely disliked by nrly all American commanders.
555paint 1 month ago
@555paint "nrly"???
There are people who opine that Montgomery was an absolutely despicable human being....but let's leave Monty's mother out of this!
kentamitchell 4 weeks ago
@kentamitchell Yes nearly all American commanders,,,some like Gavin liked Monty and said so in his memoirs--said Monty was the most professional soldier of the war he had met..others like Clark learned how to handle Monty and didnt have the kind of conflicts others did with him. So by nearly I meant like 90 percent but it is worth noting a small number got on with him albeit very small. I dont get the part about his mother--dont know what you mean
555paint 4 weeks ago
@555paint Monty did NOT have a good relationship with his mum- so bad that he did not attend her funeral.
kentamitchell 4 weeks ago
@kentamitchell again dont know how his mom fits into anything i said but it is interesting he wasnt on good terms with his mom...maybe that explains a lot. I know he had a relationship with a young boy in his retirement that many people felt was odd.
555paint 4 weeks ago
@14067913 I might add that the Germans regarded Patton as the American general as well--as the movie/book states--rightly or wrongly. As far as they were concerned there was no one else.
555paint 1 month ago
@14067913 Hodges, Patch, etc and obviously Bradley all commanded bigger armies than Patton's 3rd amry yet for the american public--Patton and 3rd army was it...to the annoyance of a lot of other American commanders I might add. The fact that few people even knew who the other American commander were says it all even though the others had larger commands. So in that sense the narrator is correct.
555paint 1 month ago
@14067913
The Americans never give credit to Montgomery for his overall command of Operation Overlord...and his overall command of ground forces in Normandy up to the breakout....
Baskerville22 3 days ago
@14067913 In context they were competing. 3rd Army (and Bradley's Army Group as a whole) were consuming absurd amounts of fuel, which was harder to bring in, much more than 21st Army Group, while 21st Army Group, especially 2nd Army, was consuming immense amounts of ammunition and replacement soldiers. There was, quite literally not enough of the critical supplies to keep both going. Whether Patton or Montgomery were right is another matter entirely.
educatedcockroach 2 days ago
Primo: I know Montgomery may be a hero for many people, but you what? Fuck him for what he did to general Sosabowski after Market Garden. Patton was ten times better commander and also better man than Montgomery.
Secundo: To all morons who think it were Russians who saved the world from Hitler - fuck you too!
It was Stalin and USSR that were nazi allies for many years prior to war and at the beginning of it (recommend reading something about Molotov–Ribbentrop pact)
Xavras7 6 months ago
Eisenhower had three idle airborne divisions (17th, 82nd, and 101st) on his hands, so he encouraged his top generals to come up with a plan to use them, making Montgomery's Market Garden not something he came up with out of the blue. The key was the British tanks making it to Arnhem before the Brits and Poles there were wiped out. Not a good idea because when the Allies left for Sicily after North Africa, the two things they left behind were the British tanks and a Brazilian fighter squadron.
SabraStiehl 7 months ago
@SabraStiehl Oh? The absence of that Brazilian squadron must have been determinant for the SNAFU...
Gheorgyi 6 months ago
Roosevelt all but promised Stalin a "second front" in 1942, then delayed D Day until 1944, but all the time there was a second front - the B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, and other planes that day and night obliterated France and Germany. 65,000 American airmen died in the Allied bombing campaign, as well as about 40,000 Brits and their cohorts. German civilian deaths - about 970,000. Russia did about 85% of the ground fighting, but the Western nations controlled the air, which greatly helped Russia.
SabraStiehl 7 months ago
@SabraStiehl The allied bombing campaign was such a goof, that at the end oif the war 85 percent of the German war industry was still operational and in full swing. What those planes were very clever against ,was civilian buildings and people. Nittdorf aiming instrument and everything.
Gheorgyi 6 months ago
@Gheorgyi Pretty much total nonsense; German industrial output finally fell in late 1944; yes, I know you'll say that the peak year of German industrial output was 1944 but there is no way to measure how much higher it would have been if it hadn't been for bombing by the UK and US.
also, the Germans had no manpower or at least time to train replacements for all the equipment they were still turning out; their manpower losses in the field were too high.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
@SatchmoSing Germany had no chance once they declared war on america
lopido 5 months ago
@lopido Some would argue that the participation of the US in Europe (Asia would be an entirely different matter) wasn't all that important from a military standpoint, anyway.
What is NOT arguable is the industrial might of this nation; our ability to turn out war goods was incredibly staggering.
Please consider that the Soviet Union lost more dead civilians alone, in Leningrad than the Western Allies did in combat fighting on ALL fronts.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
@SatchmoSings soviet union didnt give a shit about its civilians or soliders. they thought life was cheap.
lopido 5 months ago
@lopido In many ways that was true both because of the Communist government but also because the USSR just wasn't as industrialized so they had to "do it all" (well, not quite) simply with not only manpower but womanpower, too.
By way of comparison, the US which lost 250,000 soldiers in combat (vs 24 MIILION total USSR dead) 1/3 of those men died in aircraft mostly as bomber crewmen; that's a lot of (then) hi-tech hardware and there was huge amounts of it.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
@SabraStiehl 01. Your numbers for dead Western Allied BOMBER airmen is rather low; the Brits lost, DEAD, nearly 60,000 bomber crewmen alone; the US about 80,000; you are correct in your statistic of dead Germans by Western Allied bombing.
And this is KILLED IN ACTION bomber crewmen; the amount of hardware that was put up by the Western Allies to sustain such losses was fantastic; regarding the US, this is about ONE THIRD of all combat deaths on all fronts in WW2; for the Brits it was about 28%.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
@SabraStiehl 02. The Allies HAD a 2nd front; what the hell did Stalin think North Africa, Sicily and Italy were?
Also, Stalin should have invaded Manchuria after "Kursk" or at least should have done so on the same day as "D-Day" Stalin only came into Asia after Hiroshima was nuked; fuck 'em!
The USSR faced 100 divisions; the Western Allies faced 60 and they were of lesser, overall quality; many more SS Divisions on The Eastern Front.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
@SatchmoSings Yo again Louis. Apparently for decades Russian history books ignored the A-bomb and put down Japan's defeat to Russia's invasion of Manchuria in August '45!
9toonarmy9 5 months ago
@9toonarmy9 Now that's FUNNY!
And we have all these Western "revisionist" historians here rewriting all this history of what happened in The West!
I'm also sure that none of these Russian history books talk about the 250,000 Japanese soldiers dragooned into "The Gulag" let alone the 350,000 Germans they also did this too.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
I must say that what the Germans achieved in 1944 when they were short on fuel (pretty much meant stationary and defensive warfare was the only option), Germany was in ruins and millions were already dead and injured, was nothing short of amazing.
Then again it was a question of life and death for the Germans since Hitler ordered them to fight to the last man and not retreat. Hitler would rather see Germany utterly destroyed than surrendering to the "jew-controlled enemies".
WASPTexas 7 months ago
I see the argument still is on about the Soviet contribution to the war. Simple fact, Hitler's only chance was a fast knockout in 1941, something that was most likely beyond the reach of the Wehrmacht anyway. The thing to remember is ALL the German victories of the war were fundamentaly TACTICAL, NOT STRATEGIC. HItler needed to do the same thing that Napoleon wanted to to do in 1812 - A quick political war. What he got was what Napoleon got - a national war.
ryoushii 7 months ago
the zionist bankers won the war, the rest of you wannbe historians have no perspective
pt1gard 7 months ago
the zionist bankers won the war, the rest of you wannbe historians have no perspective
pt1gard 7 months ago
FYI, The British severely underestimated the Japanese. They believed the Japanese were mentally incapable of strategic ability and comprehension of simple logic. They also believed that the average Japanese height was too short to be able to competently pilot aircraft. They could not have been more wrong. The loss of Burma, and several other territories dealt a serious blow to British military prestige. The Americans did the same at Pearl Harbor.
th4Guy77 7 months ago
@th4Guy77 You are basically correct; one of the most important wars of the early 20th Century was the Russo-Japanese War; you'd think the world would have learned something about the Japanese from that war.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
chuck norris
spankfoam 8 months ago
I'm 17 and love war movies, I prefer like Vietnam and ww2 but I've almost seen all of them now i soon have to convert to modern day which I'm sad about
ZerkPureFTW 8 months ago
@ZerkPureFTW Try "The Blue Max" from the late 1960s; it's a WW1 movie with really great staged aerial combat with no computer generated images; it also says a lot about "class warfare."
Also, on "Youtube" is "The Lost Battalion."
But if you can stomach a film from 1930, try "All Quiet On The Western Front;" clips are on youtube including an absolutely fantastic battle sequence.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
@SatchmoSings thanks
ZerkPureFTW 5 months ago
@ZerkPureFTW Try this:
watch?v=Ciq9ts02ci4&feature=channel_video_title
A "mint print" from 1929-30 and it does have sound.
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thank you sir for uploading this beautifull movie
"gets a bucket of popcorn, a soda and makes himself comfortable"
Timmyboy505 8 months ago
creepy voice
TheArguseyes 9 months ago
I heard that the U.S. soldiers enjoyed the Destruction of Japs Corpses.Actually, Japs ware crazy. But, in any countries, Soldiers can be crazy and egregious murders.
If not, they are sometimes useless at war. To decide which soldiers were horrible monsters between Wehrmacht and Imperial Army is itself nonesense and ridiculous.
ReichsrepublikJapan 9 months ago
The Nazis were monsters, get that straight, civilized?Tell that to a Jew or Gipsy and all others the Nazis slaughtered! Japanese were no different what they did to the British and Aussie prisoners...etc.There may be some merciful individuals but the main polices of these 2 countries was to dominate and rid of what they considered undesirables. Oh shit......isn't the current pope an former-Nazi?
hamogunjafarmer 9 months ago
@hamogunjafarmer yeah but the avarage german soldier wasnt by definition a nazi not all germans were nazi s most of the german army were simple soldiers doing their jobs and this comes from a dutchy
bleushift 7 months ago
The only reason Market Garden failed cause Monty's forces failed to reach the bridges the airborne captured days ago and supplies fell into German hands. This was a fail timing operation.
TheRapper10000 9 months ago 2
The book is so much better than the movie and a lot more accurate. Eisenhower didn't have any pressure from his superiors. Monty pitched him this hair brained operation and Eisenhower fell for it. He admitted this to C. Ryan when interviewed. Patton had to halt his advance. He was 100 miles ahead of all the Allied armies when they put Market Garden into action. It's idiotic to hold back your best General. Also the Allied high command ignored all the intelligence coming from the Arnhem area.
1916jutland 10 months ago
World War 2? Sean Connery?
Better get some popcorn!
TheRockinryan 10 months ago
懐かしい！。遠すぎた橋だなこれ！。
dokuzaru64 10 months ago
a lie. monty demaned all the supplies the silly shit
dcconsi 10 months ago
Oh man all those credits up front!
Landers 10 months ago
a very nice movie but the sound is too weak would u reupload it again with a good sound tnx
1968dingdong 11 months ago
@1968dingdong hmmm, I've got the same problem
jackotheripper 11 months ago
Definitely - the bigger portion of battles in Africa, Italy and France were - as compared with the eastern front - simply a joke. But there are some that can match it. If you think about Market Garden, The Bulge, Cassino and Hürtgen, they can make you shiver as much as the average eastern scenarios do.
Jagertal 11 months ago 2
@Jagertal Not to mention the savageness and brutality of the Japanese.
ross79745 11 months ago
@ross79745 Seems to me that in Asia this way of conducting a war was much more traditional than it was in the western world then, but not only for the Japanese but also for the Chinese, Malayans, Indians and the colonial troops used by the French, British, Dutch in general.
Jagertal 11 months ago
@ross79745 no... the germans could be just as brutal as the japanese. the only reason they werent on the western front is quite honestly, they had few opportunities after 1942, because the western allies pretty much won most of the battles, and because the nazis considered the west 'civilized.'
dchris1990 10 months ago
@dchris1990 Have you ever watched Bridge On The River Kwai? May be hollywood, but alot of truth in it. British troops went into Japanese concentration camps at about 12/13 stone, and came out about 7. Plus the banzai attackers, the charges, the booby traps, the Savageness of the Germans is a complete joke towards the allies.
ross79745 10 months ago
@ross79745 The SS was brutal, not the regular German army. All Japanese could be brutal because they were pretty severely brainwashed and tough, strong fighters.
czechchineseamerican 10 months ago
@ross79745 Alllies were pritty bad as well only it wasn't told because then they would lose a big part of the support for the war.... allies were bad as well i hope you guys will understand that now as well
DeTooR94 10 months ago
@DeTooR94 Agreed, because the allies killed six millions jews...oh no wait that's the Nazi
laurencelikestopgun 10 months ago
@laurencelikestopgun russias killed more jews than germans?????????............ and btw the allies sailed under medicflags while they were sending weapons to their front.... and then suddenly opend fire when there was a gemran patrol... those are warcrimes as well......
DeTooR94 10 months ago
@ross79745 the germans also respected the west much more than they did the jew-bolshevik slavs. In East Europe they did HORRIBLE massacres, genocide, and... oh come on do i really have to tell you that the Nazis were the bad guys?! Really?
dchris1990 10 months ago
@dchris1990 I think you misunderstand, 6 million Jews were murdered, but notice I said, 'towards the allies'
ross79745 10 months ago
@ross79745 - 9 million Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Army. But I get what you are speaking of....
BLCFrenzy 10 months ago
@ross79745 the Soviets were the Allies. And most of the Jews came from the Soviet Union. So yea, to the 'western' allies, the Wehrmacht was decent, most of the time (save for a lot of B26 pilots who never came home from italian prison camps).... but in the east, they were as bad monsters as the Japanese... sorry, but i'm standing by my statement....
dchris1990 9 months ago
@ross79745 the difference between the nazis and japs where that a medic and priest would not be shot on sight but nazis but japs shot anyone
jonitis117 9 months ago
Some of your pointed out the japs, and the japs had their mass killings to of chineses, indonesians, burnameses and many more, totaly oer 18 million murderd ciwliians 1937 - 1945. However thats unfortanley not as much noticed as the 6 million jews today, the phrase "The victors write history" well tha japs los?! So why arent their crimes shown to the public as much as the german crimes?
JSLegoMaster 8 months ago
True, Stalin murderd over 39 million russians and german pows/allies of germany, the japaneses murderd over 18 million chineses and other east asians.
The germans murderd 6 million jews and al in all about 13 million people includong other ciwilains and POW.
So many countires did horrible crimes, but the media today makes it look that the holocaust was the only crime and thats a shame becuase all vitims of ww2 should be remembered.
JSLegoMaster 7 months ago
@JSLegoMaster ...and how many civilians the us have killed from 1945 to today will never be known. same goes for china. which shows, that the star wars world never existed, where the good ones are just good and the bad ones just bad.
1993heavenshallburn 7 months ago
@JSLegoMaster theres an old saying history is written by the victors.
Silvarus100 7 months ago
Sure thing, but Japan LOST but its geonicies are nearly forgotten while the holocast by germay is still actuall material
JSLegoMaster 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dchris1990
Because that was the "Generalplan Ost" for the nazis in which they envisioned a future "super-Germany" which would expand greatly on the captured territories in the east. As far as Hitler and the nazis were concerned THIS was one of the main objectives of the war. After all the jews had been exterminated we'd see a much larger planned extermination of the people in Poland and the Soviet Union. For these people the war was truly a struggle for life or death. They knew this.
McLarenMercedes 7 months ago 5
The banzai charges are the most primitive and useless kind of tactic used in ww2, the japaneses didnt even shoot their riffles when charging, but trying to only use the bayonet/sword. I think if the japs would use their soliders in defensive warfare agsint the allies after midway and not making useless counterattacks ending in fields of dead japs (Liek saipan) thy would make their own losses far less and eventually hold the americans off
JSLegoMaster 8 months ago
@JSLegoMaster They NEVER would hold the Americans off. Admiral Yamamoto knew it full well before they even attacked Pearl Harbor, he went to school at Harvard and had two attache postings to Washington, DC. He knew the industrial capacity of the United States and that Japan would be crushed. If they had stuck to defensive tactics, they would have inflicted more casualties on the US, but would have been crushed just the same without question.
giggedy4goo 8 months ago
Yes obisouly they had no chance.
But this wuestino is ery simple, you will lose and you know it. What do you do?
1. Try to kill as many eneimes as possible before its end,
2. Send your troops into suicidal attacks losing far more of your own men?
JSLegoMaster 8 months ago
@JSLegoMaster 3. Wait and build up forces until you can win. (I know Japan attacked because they wanted natural resources to build forces without US meddling)
giggedy4goo 8 months ago
Yeah but the way they attacked is totaly suicide. If you attack you need to do it right and the japs proived their tactic was wrong.
I mention Saipan again as a example of japanese banzai attacks failure.
JSLegoMaster 8 months ago
@JSLegoMaster
I think you fail to recognise that they didnt use these tactics for any strategic benefit. These tactics were the result of the idea of honour that was drilled into the minds of the japs from an early age. As far as they were concerned, the man who died charging at the enemy is more of a hero than the man who killed hundreds of men from inside a pillbox and then bugged out to live and fight another day
MJtheKandyman 7 months ago
I know they had kinda of a religious thing there but strategicaly its suicide.
And if you are a officer who cares about the outcome of a battle you never do that like the japs.
JSLegoMaster 7 months ago
@JSLegoMaster
The officers were in two groups. Most followed the idea of an honourable death being better than a cowardly victory. Others (such as the man who commanded the japanese at iwo jima, I have forgotten his name) tried to make their men stop the suicidal charges, but just couldnt control the men to make them stop it entirely
MJtheKandyman 7 months ago
I got your point, but the best thing for the japaneses would be to let some european (maybe their german allies) teach them about infantry tactics such as the indians, they learned from the british and were very sucessfull in the desert campaigns.
JSLegoMaster 7 months ago
@ross79745 It is often forgotten how brutal Imperial Japan was and I think we should therefore forbit the Imperial Japanese flag.
DutchPetriot 8 months ago
@Jagertal Yea, im sick of even our country the (USA) I cant believe we still have racist fucks all over. but mainly in the bible belt. The southern racists should go into concebntration camps. It would save us a lot on spam and spitting tobacco. Long live true blood tho!
newonet 11 months ago
@newonet But tell me - what has this to do with the manner of conducting war then? And regarding the "Bible belt": I`ve never been in the United States, but learned much about it in several History books. So I believe you mean the area south of the so called "Mason-Dixon-Line", don`t you? Nevertheless I heard about some bible-hardened regions in the north either, e.g. Wisconsin.
Jagertal 11 months ago
@andrehstewart: I think you're forgetting that for the first two years of the war, Russia was Nazi Germany's biggest ally. It was the British and Commonwealth nations who stood against Hitler. Besides, Stalin murdered more of his people than the Nazis ever managed to kill.
pmcmanus420 11 months ago
Enjoyed the movie. Great cast. Not sure what Richard Attenbourgh's point was in making this movie.
Inglese001 11 months ago
I saw this film when it first came out in the old Odeon in Renfield Street, a listed building for which an alternative use has still not yet been found. But this film nowadays looks very unrealistic and inauthentic compared to Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.
Cool2BCeltic 1 year ago
@Cool2BCeltic They should show it in the Cineworld or the I max. No chance of that happening but hey :P
but yeah Cineworld killed the odeon on Renfield street.
pete1munchen 11 months ago
Guys shut the fuck up and enjoy the movie with its fantastic music and talented actors for gods sake I think to myself how much we have lost in talent of musicians and actors so just shut your traps and chill.
MrBond41 1 year ago
D day was not a saviour day. They landed when the russian have done all the work. And still the west could not cope fully with the war. Russians won the war. The west just waited on the side to save their skin.
andrehstewart 1 year ago
@andrehstewart I strongly disagree, who defeated the Japanese? The Allies defeated the Germans in North Africa, Sicily and France it was only because Berlin was closer to the Russians that they won it.
ross79745 1 year ago
@ross79745 Ike let the Russkies have berlin. better to let the russians bleed for it than american or british troops.
Rimasta1 1 year ago
@Rimasta1 Rubbish, the Allies were only just crossing the borders of Germany, Berlin is over the other side of Germany, and the Russians were closer.
ross79745 1 year ago
@Rimasta1
You, sir, are right on. I would rather bury 1,000 Russians before I had to bury 1 GI or Tommy.
hannibalcaesar3 1 year ago
@ross79745 yeah, by dropping 2 nukes on 2 major cities, nice way to win a war if you ask me.
nederwiet 1 year ago
@ross79745 ...the red army accounted for 85% of all axis casualties in the european theatre...see "wwii casualties" for more statistics
jethro035181 11 months ago
@ross79745
Read a book about WW2.
Then you'd know that 80% of the casaulties of the German army was on the Eastern Front. Hitler knew himself that the only way he could possibly win the war was to establish continental superiority AND seize the oil fields in the Kaukasus (which he failed).
North Africa was a secondary front for the German Army and Hitler wouldn't have bothered with Africa at all, if not Mussolini was getting driven out by the British. The same thing happened in Greece.
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 7 months ago
@SteveSpicerPortsmuth Good God, some people like to get on their high horses. My great grandfather, having escaped from Dunkirk and watched his brother get killed must be turning in his grave. All the Brits and Americans that died fighting for our future, to then say it was totally the Russians that won it. Disgraceful.
SpareMomentStudios 7 months ago 3
@SpareMomentStudios Sickening, isn't it? I'll just leave these people to their "facts". Britain and American soldiers died for nothing if the Russians had it all. R.I.P freedom fighters, now unrecognised because of all the people that say Russian won the WHOLE war.
ross79745 7 months ago
I MAY UPLOAD THIS WHOLE MOVIE IN HD AND WIDESCREEN. THUMBS UP IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT!!! :D
ross79745 7 months ago 195
@ross79745 Do it lad!
yeshu26uk 5 months ago
@ross79745 Do it lad!
yeshu26uk 5 months ago
@SpareMomentStudios it may indeed be "disgracefull" but the fact is that "between" 75% and 80% of the German army was destroyed on the Eastern front.Operation Bagration in the summer of 1944 alone involved more men and casulties than the entire D-day operation put together.That is of course NOT in anyway to suggest that the lives of some allies were more or less in value than others BUT when it comes to cold hard statistics the USSR paid a higher price and sacrificed more soldiers in WWII.
revol148 7 months ago
@ross79745
On D-day there were 60 German divisions in France, compared to over 230 German divisions tied down on the huge Eastern Front trying to hold the advancing Red Army back. Where was the war lost for Germany again? Hollywood wants you to think Germany lost it in France in 1944, when they had already lost millions in the East. On D-day the Soviets were already close to the Polish border and had driven out the Germans from most of the Soviet territory.
Read a book written by a historian.
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 7 months ago
@ross79745
Here's something you won't hear in Hollywood movies. The Chinese sacrificed 10 million of their own to fight the Japanese in Manchuria (part of China which Japan invaded). Half of the Imperial Japanese Army was bogged down in Manchuria striking down both the Chiang-Kei-Shek led Chinese nationalists and the Chinese communists. The Filippinos also provided a tremendous headache for the Japanese invaders.
The Japenese never had a fraction of the well armed forces the Germans had.
SteveSpicerPortsmuth 7 months ago 3
@andrehstewart If the western allies wouldn't have held britain and put such pressure on the germans, the soviets would have been overrun in 1942. The germans came very close to taking the entire soviet union on several occasions. The only reason they never achieved that was because the british and american forces were winning in north africa and the germans didn't have enough resources to fight effectively on both fronts.
All allied forces did great. None could have won without the others.
Hanske90 1 year ago 2
@Hanske90 Totally agree with you there.
ross79745 1 year ago
@Hanske90 Completely right there, I totaly agree, the allies´ victory in World War II was a joint effort, everyone did their part and shed their share of blood.
Kenisi1 1 year ago
@andrehstewart where to begin with this non sense? first the Soviets did not have to wage a global war--they didn't have to secure the atlantic, fight the Japanese in the Pacific, supply dozens of countries with matierai (incuding the USSR) they didn't have to fight a naval war, they didn't have to fight a strategic air war, they didn;t knock out German oil produciton--which cost the germans big time, one could on and on and on...
555paint 1 year ago
@andrehstewart You stalin tried to say something like this to churchill in early 43 when the latter told stalin there would be no 2nd front in 43 and stalin started complaining that the British and Americans were letting the russians do all the fighting and Churchill replied: Britiian was figthing germany a whole year ALONE when russia and Stalin were friends with Hitler and Germany and not just friends but actually supplying the German war machined with huge ammoiunts of raw materials.
555paint 1 year ago
@andrehstewart Waited on their side to save their skin--you mean the way Joe Stalin did while he was at peace with Hitler, best friends with Hitler, actually supplying the nazi war machine with raw materials from russia while Britian and France fought the Germans and then ENgland alone? You mean that kinda of standing on the side lines?
555paint 1 year ago
@andrehstewart I might add churchill warned Stalin that their intellegence strongly indicated that germany was about to attack russia and with what effect? Stalin ignored the warning even though it was confirmed by Soviet's own sources!
555paint 1 year ago
@andrehstewart Hee..Hee..Hee..Alright, comrade, believe the story that was first told to the Russians by your Uncle Joe...oops..I am sorry...I mean The Gloriously Brave Fearlest Leader Comrade Joseph Stalin. Keep on believing that you Russians defeated the Third Reich all by yourselves. The British were just sitting around having tea and crumpets, and we Americans were just getting drunk and having sex with British and French women. Alright. Okay. Whatever you say, comrade. ;)
RADIXCHRISTUSMOLE 1 year ago
@andrehstewart if the United Kingdom, America and the other western allies did not put pressure on the Germans, they would have overrun you, not to mention the Japanese
black00dice 1 year ago
@andrehstewart
"waited on the side"?
Really? Allied troops fought in many, many countries from 1939 to 1945. The British fought alone for years before the Russians even became engaged. Both the US and the UK sent aid of all kinds to Russia. The Russians certainly made the biggest contribution and sacrifice, but there were lots of countries and individuals who played huge parts in the final victory.
2210ethan 1 year ago
@andrehstewart The only reason the Reds got to Berlin first is because most of the best German divisions (Panzer Lehr, LSSAH, etc.) were deployed against the Allies in the West. After the Normandy landings Hitler grew increasingly disinterested in the Eastern Front and German Armies West got the lion's share of the last German armaments production.
NoJeanNoMoney1 1 year ago
@andrehstewart what a stupid thing to say. I'd expect that from Nazi or Stalinist propaganda, but not in 2011.
blueray1969 1 year ago
@andrehstewart only thing that defeated germany was hitler himself. read it up, hear what folks of that time had to say about it and dont take everything for granted that you saw in hollywood movies or call of duty. germany could easily have won the war.
therealbamlee 11 months ago
@andrehstewart russia won the war? are you fucking kidding me..
russia helped germany taking poland and couldve bin easily be different if russia was up against the allies. the only reason russian helped the allies was by the statement. the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
bleushift 7 months ago
VERY Poor Sound - in volume and quality.
resculptit 1 year ago
@resculptit You must have some bad speakers or something, everyone else is fine it appears.
ross79745 1 year ago
John Ratzenberger--Ciiff from CHeers--is in this movie some where but I haven't spoted him.
555paint 1 year ago
@555paint
He's in the 82nd Airborne river attack scene on the Nijmegen Bridge...
faeembrugh 1 year ago
@faeembrugh thanks i finally spoted him--what about those boats?
555paint 1 year ago
how old is this?
TheFiestyterrorist 1 year ago
i love this movie one of the best done war films.
warstater15 1 year ago
@SparkyHistoryMan I know, I mean have military historians run out of topics? strange to me that it hasn't caught more attention although I am not familiar with the British publications, Ryan was an American as well...that should add a certain insult to injury. I suspect one reasonOMG doesn't get the attention it deserves from historians is that it was such a complicated operation and the outcome--why it floped--it so debatable.
555paint 1 year ago
@SparkyHistoryMan Well these Hollywood actors all look alike so it is easy to mix them up...right I am sure you will like Ryan's book--strange, we have a million books on D Day, and lots of just about every battle in WWII but only one major book on Market Garden...
555paint 1 year ago
@SparkyHistoryMan Actually it was Redford in that role; O'Neil played Gen Gavin--probably the only American general who got on well with Monty I might add.
555paint 1 year ago
@555paint I haven't seen the Kershaw book---sounds very interesting, thanks for the tip. S. Ambrose said he took one look at the road that 20th Corps was assigned and concluded immediately that was the fatal flaw in the plan...narrow, elevated etc..I don't know if that is it or if that is one of several factors....
555paint 1 year ago
Well, try to accept the movie for what it is: entertainment. But I strongly encourage any and all to research the facts on your own. The cooperation of the varied allies was not as simple and straight forward as it is portrayed today. The Poles pretty much got the unpleasant end of the stick at just about every turn in the ETO in the names of convenience and diplomacy.
jaymoe67 1 year ago
@jaymoe67 Well the movie projects itself as more than entertainment but also a grand statement on war--thus the pretentious narration at the start. As far as research goes I have read Ryan's book several times over the years partly because I think it is a great case study in failure anaylsis. As far as the Poles go--yeah I didnt doubt or imply that they weren't screwed. All I said was that the movie confines the inner Allied tensions to them alone--more or less ignoring American-Brit issues
555paint 1 year ago
@SparkyHistoryMan OK, Actually it was Robert Redford who did the hail mary crossing....I wasnt aware however as you say that it was switched from a British to an American action. That is a serious flaw on the movies part. I hate it when that happens--probably meant to appeal to an American audience. On the whole I personally thought the movie was only OK for a variety of reasons...Ryan's book is far superior and deserved a better movie.
555paint 1 year ago
@SparkyHistoryMan Oh, OK, I thought you were saying the movie is a USA view of Market-Garden whereas I thought it was a fair assesment from both sides, perhaps even a bit pro British. If anything the harshest crits comes (in this movie) from the Poles. Perhaps that was a device--they were made to stand in for USA crit. But anyways as far as inner Allied warfare went I thought the movie was pretty even handed. (Band of Bros for example is much harsher on the British)
555paint 1 year ago