On the night of September 25–26, 1944, the survivors of the Arnhem operation tried to cross the Lower Rhine in darkness. The decision was a withdrawal, not the relief originally promised by Operation Market Garden. For the soldiers at the Oosterbeek perimeter, the river had become the route out; for civilians left behind, the battle’s end did not mean safety.
Written and fact-checked by the Discover Today in History editorial team.
← Return to Today in History: September 25
The bridge that could not be held
Market Garden aimed to seize a chain of bridges through the Netherlands and open an Allied route into Germany. Airborne troops were dropped far ahead of ground forces. At Arnhem, only a small force reached and fought at the road bridge. The larger British 1st Airborne Division held a shrinking defensive pocket around Oosterbeek west of the city, reinforced by Polish airborne soldiers.
The planned link with Allied ground troops failed to arrive in strength across the river. Ammunition, food and medical capacity diminished while German attacks compressed the perimeter. Continuing to hold it meant increasing losses with little prospect of the original objective. Evacuation required secrecy, boats and a crossing under fire.
The night named Berlin
Operation Berlin began on September 25 and ran into the early hours of September 26. British and Polish personnel moved down from the perimeter to the north bank while engineers and boat crews worked from the south. Rain, darkness and noise could conceal movement, but they also complicated navigation. The crossing was not a neat reversal of the airborne landing: wounded people and small groups had to reach rivercraft under dangerous conditions.
Accounts commonly cite roughly 2,400 men brought back across. Exact totals depend on whom an account includes and how casualties and subsequent escapes are counted. The rescue saved a significant part of the remaining force but did not undo the losses of the nine-day battle. The image above shows survivors in Nijmegen after the evacuation; it does not purport to show the crossing itself.
Who stayed and what followed
Many wounded could not be moved. Medical personnel remained with them, and others were captured after the withdrawal. The human account therefore cannot end with a count of those who returned. Arnhem’s civilian population was also displaced on a vast scale. Airborne Museum Hartenstein describes about 150,000 people from Arnhem and the surrounding area forced from their homes during or after the fighting.
The museum places the withdrawal explicitly in the night of September 25 to 26 and states that the Battle of Arnhem ended with it. Market Garden had failed to gain the intended route. It would be misleading to compress these events into a triumphant final scene or to use a post-evacuation portrait as proof of the river crossing’s appearance.
A date spanning midnight
Calendar-day features can distort nighttime operations. September 25 is when the withdrawal began; September 26 is when many of its crossings concluded. Both dates belong to the event. A reader searching for an action on September 25 should see that distinction, rather than a falsely exact single-day finish.
The legacy is likewise double: extraordinary work by the engineers and surviving troops, and a strategic failure followed by capture, bereavement and civilian displacement. Remembering the crossing means placing those outcomes together.
The battle seen from two banks
The north bank held the Oosterbeek perimeter, with men trying to move without advertising the withdrawal. The south bank held the Allied troops and engineers who could attempt the rescue. A successful crossing depended on both: silently bringing groups to the water, finding them in the dark, and carrying them back to territory held by the Allies. A simple arrow drawn across a map conceals the repeated journeys and the exposure of boat crews.
The evacuation also had a hard priority problem. There were not enough opportunities to take everyone. Many wounded could not be moved safely, and medical staff who stayed were captured. It is misleading to present a photograph of relieved survivors as though it contains the whole moral and operational ledger. The Imperial War Museums image is invaluable precisely when captioned as a post-evacuation record; it shows who returned, while our text must also account for those who did not.
For Dutch residents the withdrawal did not restore an ordinary city. Evacuation orders, damaged homes and occupation shaped the months to come. The Airborne Museum’s account refuses an easy ending by following the civilians who were driven out of Arnhem and nearby places. That longer chronology is why September 25–26 marks the end of a battle, not the end of its consequences. The linked archive story on the September 20 Waal crossing at Nijmegen shows another part of the same campaign.
Sources and method
The date and civilian aftermath are documented by Airborne Museum Hartenstein; the Imperial War Museums photograph record identifies the survivor image. This account avoids attributing undocumented thoughts or dialogue to people in the boats and treats the approximate evacuation count as an estimate rather than a roll call.
Explore another September 25 story: the day’s complete edition.
-_17_-_25_September_1944_HU5417.jpg){kind=link}