This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The sentence at issue currently reads "The boats were requested for late afternoon but did not arrive at that time. Once again XXX Corps was held up in front of a bridge which should have been captured before they arrived."
It might be fairer to write that "Once again XXX Corps was held up in front of a bridge which planners had expected to have been captured before they arrived." In writing "should have been", there is the implication that the airborne unit tasked with its capture had shown a lack of courage or initiative, that the air transport command had dropped them in the wrong place, or something like that.
In war, it often happens that undetected enemy reserves intervene, that the enemy acts with a degree of courage and initiative beyond the expectations of the operation's planners, or even that the enemy just gets lucky. All these things can lead to reverses that were not expected. Historygamer (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Removing some of the bias against minor figures involved in the operation. It was an English operation, and a mess at that. Responsiblity for the mess is being passed to others such as the Poles and Americans who are not even listed in the commanders section. You can be sure that had it been a victory, the English would have taken full credit. Wallie (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. But this is nothing new.. Another example: Everybody knows the battle of Waterloo, Wellington and the british victory. Nobody remembers Blücher, his prussian troops and the decisive role they played in that battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Please learn the difference between "English" and "British". Also, please become aware of the fact that the First Allied Airborne Army, the USSAF, and RAF planned the airborne element of this operation. That is several multinational forces all playing a major role in the planning and carrying out of drop zones, objectives, flying troops in, and conducting the actual fighting. 21st Army Group, who conducted the ground portion of the advance, was also multi-national with British Second Army comprised of Belgian, English, Irish (both from the north and those who had crossed over from the Republic to fight against Nazism), Scots, Welsh, and Germans (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8635541.stm). So drop the sarcastic racist attitude, and bring a constructive and sourced argument to the table.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL, racist. British is a race now, is it? <ignore> Both of you, knock it off. This is a controversial article, not at all aided by the massive amount of American vs. British finger-pointing that has dogged the topic for more than half a century. You both look very embarrassing in the year 2014 when you spout 1940s nationalism.
That said, I would note that the general historical consensus has now turned against the plan itself, while retaining a secondary appreciation for the smaller impact created by bad tactics: the American 508th PIR and the British XXX Corps both now come out of the mess looking quite crappy due to their lack of aggression compared to the other airborne units that were desperately fighting to make good on their parts of the plan. Even Gavin was regretful he didn't send his A-team to handle the bridge at Nijmegen, and Monty hated Adair (commander XXX Corps) and had wanted him replaced months ago. BUT....neither of these units decided the battle. The battle was lost before it was started. Regardless of what Patton (all tactical and 0% strategic) thought, it takes a hell of a lot of good tactics to rescue a bad strategy, but any good strategy includes an expectation of a certain amount of bad tactics. Monty's plan had zero wiggle room for bad tactics, bad weather, bad intel or bad anything else. It was a bad plan because it was a tightrope walk based on unverified expectations and unresearched assumptions. If he had not been stomping his feet so hard for a chance to rehabilitate his image as strategic master after Caen and the Falaise Gap, Ike would have rejected it and they would have done something else. He even admitted as much in his post-war writings. But Monty had pull and a flair for the dramatic and Ike had a soft spot for politics, and THAT is why current historical consensus stands where it does. No need to make the matter personal. Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Quote: ' The left wing would cover the Army's northern flank by moving up to the Waal near Nijmegen and isolating the German 15th Army situated on the Dutch coast.'
Nijmegen is not anywhere near the Dutch coast. It's necessary to elaborate upon how taking ground around Nijmegen would have isolated German forces on the coast; (and which 'coast' is being referrred to?)18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if it's an appropriate piece of information to include given the serious tone of this article, but I thought it might be worth mentioning that Operation Market Garden featured in the video game, Medal of Honor: Vanguard.
Perhaps worth mentioning this in a new section entitled, 'In popular culture' or similar?
Personally, I would argue no to videogames (inclusion would render the question of what should be included since there are tons of games that are based on the op, or use it as inspiration) although I think a better case can be made for movies due to larger impact they have (in terms of viewing and cultural impact).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Popular culture pah! The article is about the Arnhem gig not Mickey Mouse pac-man games. I mean this with empathy of course....;O) Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that's fine, understood. Said section suggestion isn't appropriate for inclusion in this article because it doesn't add to the weight or meaning of it, as well as being completely off tone. Thanks for the comments anyway though :-) R3troSim (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing but the best for the Wikiworkers! ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
We could create a separate article (dedicated to games, movies, books, monuments etc) and put a link in the see also section, considering the subject does seem to come up often via edits. Such a move would allow the outlet for trivia and keep this article focused.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Second that. Just to clarify, a separate article for, say, World War Two related trivia, so that the main related articles aren't distracted or cluttered by them? I'd be interested in working on something like that. :) R3troSim (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
We've tried that already. Spin off a trivia article and pack it full of all the useless stuff. Then nominate it for deletion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. Perhaps something not worth pursuing at the moment. R3troSim (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)