Don't forget that Eisenhower delayed the operation, reduced the number of units and actually
approved the whole plan. If he didn't think it would have worked he shouldn't have approved it, or was he less concerned because it was British troops at the sharp end
And of course it was an American officer that in effect handed the complete details of the operation to the Germans when he took all the relevant maps etc of Market-Garden into the combat zone and these were captured.
I'm saying that there were mistakes made by the British,
and the Americans. But the delay and the plans in German hands played a significant part in the failure of the operation making it a
shared stuff-up rather than entirely a 'British' failure.
But the above was not the 'anti British' stuff I was actually referring to. It's more the way that Hollywood tends to portray the British in movies, and in particular in 'A Bridge to Far'. For example when those 'British' Sherman tanks stopped at that bridge it looked like they were setting up for tea and scones in a meadow. When in reality they were actually under heavy fire from well supported German troops.
I guess most American viewers tend to overlook things like that as they have become accustomed to the way Hollywood portrays such things. It was a similar situation in 'Saving Private Ryan'. No mention was made of the British contributions and even the 'Bangalore Torpedo' got some heavy criticism despite it being of great assistance in helping the US troops that used it. And of course there was no mention in SPR of the Shermans being launched to far out and sinking leaving the troops on Omaha without effective armour support.
As for Ike's 'wide front' demand, don't forget that this was the main cause of "The Battle of the Bulge' and Monty proved handy in that battle if I recall.
