Korvessa  | 12 Dec 2024 9:56 p.m. PST |
I imagine most of you are like me and have huge libraries of history books. I got the above book almost 50 years ago when I was in high school. This is my frst read since then (assuming I did even then – was a long time ago) – although I have watched the movie several times (smile). But I digress. I have read several of the threads on Market Garden here on TMP. It seems that some members question its acuracy. Just curious, what do folks here consider its problems? If nothing else, he seems more acurate than Ambrose. Not that that is saying much. |
Brunanburh | 13 Dec 2024 1:56 a.m. PST |
Korvessa, here's a link to a readable and insightful review of book and film. link |
David Manley  | 13 Dec 2024 3:05 a.m. PST |
Thats an interesting read. A great looking movie, one of my favourites, but pretty shonky history in places. |
Martin Rapier | 13 Dec 2024 5:11 a.m. PST |
It is a typical book of it's time. A good (and inspiring) read, but very vague and potentially misleading in places, particularly about the actual strength of the German forces as well as more general causes and effects of the strategic, operational and tactical position. There has been a lot more research and scholarship on Market Garden since, but ultimately success has many fathers but failure is often an orphan. |
robert piepenbrink  | 13 Dec 2024 6:28 a.m. PST |
Thank you, Brunanburh. Good read, but I have a few caveats: (1) As you say, "book and film"--meaning she can cite whichever one supports a particular point, even if the other doesn't. (2) She goes well out of her way to exonerate Browning. One reason Urquart has a limited drop is aircraft transporting Browning's army HQ, which wasn't actually commanding anything. (3) Monty is seldom mentioned by name in the film, but he looms over the book, and to a lesser degree the film. Does anyone read one or watch the other under the impression Browning thought up the operation? (4) German stereotyping. Willi Bittrich comes across as a solid professional, and as humane a man as his duties permit. From what I can gather, it's a pretty accurate depiction. For that matter, where are those stereotyped war loving British? That XXX Corps brief is confident, yes, but any commander's would need to be. From here, they look more tired and determined. Anyone giving a generalization should give examples. Including me, but I don't have time to re-read and watch today. |
14Bore | 13 Dec 2024 6:59 a.m. PST |
One problem learning about Band of Brothers and might apply here is when a author uses some accounts but limiting others you could get skewed history |
Brunanburh | 13 Dec 2024 7:27 a.m. PST |
Now, Robert, steady on. I recommended a review that I had found both readable and insightful. I didn't say it was definitive and I didn't say the insights were all sound. For what it's worth I agree with you about the conflation of book and film. Again, somewhat off topic, but my main objection to the film – and to The Longest Day and Battle of the Bulge films – is that they were made (presumably for box office reasons) into vehicles for stars and for me that detracts from the narrative. |
Martin Rapier | 13 Dec 2024 9:06 a.m. PST |
"Willi Bittrich comes across as a solid professional, and as humane a man as his duties permit." Except in the film he is a weird amalgam of Bittrich and Student, the "if I had so many resources" quote being Students. IInd SS Panzer Corps HQ is also apparently somewhere south of Grave! Quite why they had to invent a mysterious General Ludwig is beyond me, he is Brigadefuhrer Heinz Harmel. |
robert piepenbrink  | 13 Dec 2024 11:16 a.m. PST |
Good points, Brunanburh. But as for "vehicles for stars" I figure to an extent that's inevitable. The key military figures are so often larger than life, that no one but movie stars can play them. My gripe is when the star is invented and inserted. The Henry Fonda character in The Battle of the Bulge is the classic there. As a film, "Bulge" doesn't bear comparison with "Longest Day" "Bridge too Far" "Battle of Britain" or even the great biopics like "Patton" and "MacArthur." But taking an entire WWII campaign and turning it into a two-hour film--with personalities and human interest, no less! simply begs for distortion. Take out the personalties and human interest, and all you have is a very bad--and dull--History Channel episode. |
Dal Gavan  | 13 Dec 2024 11:57 a.m. PST |
Just curious, what do folks here consider its problems? As Martin R says, Korvessa, there's been a lot more research on Market Garden, and some of the inevitable myths about the operation- repeated or aired by Ryan and emphasised in the movie- have since been disproved. An example is the US 82nd AB officer (I can't remember his name) chastising the Guards Armoured for "stopping for tea" and not driving straight on to Arnhem, after the road bridge at Nijmegen was secured (with help from that troops of Shermans, despite what the movie shows). The officer stated in a later interview that he never said that and someone put those words in his mouth. Similarly, the (very good) reasons why Guards Armoured didn't go charging up the road are explained in later books. The other point to remember is that there seems to have been a lot of "remembering to my advantage" by most of those whom Ryan interviewed. And a couple of swipes at rivals, as well. Which is SOP with old soldiers in any case (the higher the rank the more advantageous the memory, too ), and you probably picked up on that. But the book's still a good read and reference, mate. The movie is a slightly better Hollywood "history". Have a read of Kershaw ( link ), Neillands ( link ) and Middlebrook ( link ), if you can. They all have their biases and slants, but I don't think there's any single book on any period of history (let alone histories of battles or operations) that can stand alone and be 100% accurate, include every important happenstance and be an enjoyable read. Brunanburh, thanks for that link. |
robert piepenbrink  | 13 Dec 2024 1:37 p.m. PST |
If I beat up the movie--and to a lesser degree the book--for a single fault, it would be the impression that the Paras landed on a Panzer Corps, and not on a cadre of Normandy survivors around which the Germans would assemble a force. Overall, we tend to see more of the Allies' problems than the German ones. But again, about 600 pages of book, which is better at that, and only 180 minutes of film. Figure it takes a minute of film to cover a page of text. Boil Market-Garden down to 180 pages, and you're not going to get a lot of nuance. No point in beating up a work of art for the limits imposed by the form. |
We deal in LEAD mister | 13 Dec 2024 2:59 p.m. PST |
"No point in beating up a work of art for the limits imposed by the form." I like that. I know when SPR came out, some veterans saw the soldiers walking in the open field and talking to Capt. MIller about why Ryan deserved to be treated special. I recall one veteran saying we wouldn't talk in an open field like that, not knowing where the Germans were. I get it, but how else do you bring those thoughts out to the movie viewers? I think movies have to exaggerate to some degree to convey a point in the 2 hrs they have us in our seats. I also think there may be a human desire to simplify complex failures or events to one or two issues when really there are many contributing factors. At the end of ABTF, when the main characters are in the tower looking out over the battlefield they all point to different failures leading to the overall failure. I always thought that was a good summary. I suddenly feel motivated to go paint my Empress Miniatures Arnhem figures. |
Old Contemptible  | 13 Dec 2024 11:17 p.m. PST |
Next time please crosspost this topic to the "What are you Reading Board." It is precisely what it is there for. TMP link |
Martin Rapier | 13 Dec 2024 11:41 p.m. PST |
Despite my earlier comments, I think the film did a good job of compressing a lengthy book, and it has some very memorable moments. Who doesn't love the XXX Corps Breakout scenes! For the "feel" of the thing it helps that they had some of the original participants as advisers. |
Brunanburh | 14 Dec 2024 2:08 a.m. PST |
On the question of the film alone another film about the British participation at Oosterbeek and Arnhem is the 1946 "Theirs is the Glory" made on actual locations and featuring 200 veterans of the battle many playing themselves together with Dutch civilians who were there. The film interweaves actual footage with reconstructions filmed on location only a year after the battle. As I say it deals with British 1st Airborne Division's role. A remastered edition of the film is available as DVD from Amazon for £4.99 GBP. |
Dal Gavan  | 14 Dec 2024 2:39 a.m. PST |
Don't get me wrong, as WWII movies go ABTF is one of the better ones and one of the few DVD I have. But it's also obvious that the film was made with a US audience in mind, so some liberties were taken- eg the "stopped for tea" scene I mention above. To be fair the slant is not as glaringly intrusive as that in ANZACs or Gallipoli, but it is there. But then I'm biased and no WWII flick has or will ever measure up to my favourites- Kelly's Heroes and Battle of Britain. Thanks for the tip, Brunanburh. I saw that movie a few ANZAC Days ago, from memory (the title is memorable), but never thought to track down a DVD. |
Korvessa  | 14 Dec 2024 10:32 a.m. PST |
Old C Thanks for the tip. I didn't know about that particular subforum. Will use it in the future |