Talk:Battle of the Bulge/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Battle name

The Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of Ardennes are the same, right? So we should put them together (don't know where) jheijmans

I've just been busy putting them under Battle of Ardennes (1944). Ardennes seems to be the more formal name for the Battle. Eclecticology, Tuesday, June 18, 2002

I noticed, but why add (1944)? Were there any other "Battles of the Ardennes?". jheijmans

There was another one in World War I at the time of the earliest German offensives. Eclecticology

Ehm, now there's no article at neither Bulge nor Ardennes (1944), since they're both redirecting to each other... Jheijmans 05:43 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)

In military history books this is usually referred to as The Ardennes Offensive Battle of the Ardennes is a First World War battle.

Talk moved from Talk:Battle of Ardennes (1944)

Isn't this more commonly known as the Battle of THE Ardennes? -- Zoe

This is in the wrong place. It's not normally known as The Battle of the Ardennes, but as The Ardennes Offensive. The Battle of the Ardennes is a WW1 battle.

What's wrong with Battle of the Bulge? Until just now that is the only name I knew it by. And for Americans at least, this is the most known and popular title. Our naming conventions state that we should title articles based on common usage unless that causes an ambiguity. --mav

The only reason you know it as that is because of the movie. Battle of the Bulge was the US Army's slang for it. The normal name is The Ardennes Offensive. Mintguy 21:41 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
"Normal" by whose definition? It's the man on the street's name for it. If you ask somebody what the Battle of the Bulge was, they're going to be more likely to know it than the Ardennes Offensive. -- Zoe
Exactly. Proper military usage here does not subvert common usage for page titles. --mav
I don't think it's right to support ignorance by automatically going along with what the man in the street might say. Ask authorities on the subject instead. In my experience most reputable military histories list it under The Ardennes Offensive or possibly The Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge). It's perhaps not relevant and not worth arguing over but if you look at the list of Battles virtually all have battle of someplace' or they have a different name like Operation Barbarossa. Battle of the Bulge is inconsistent with this. Mintguy 21:58 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
The choice of a title that most people know and would expect does not support ignorance - it assists them in finding the article in the first place and doesn't preach to them that what they call something is ignorant. Stating just what the military calls something is information that should be in the article. In fact, I don't see anything wrong with using the military title throughout the whole article. But since this title is not nearly as widely known by most people, we must first introduce this term to the readers. Think of the surprise factor; Most people will be looking for Battle of the Bulge. They click on the link and are brought to something they didn't expect the Battle of Ardennes (1944). Many readers will instantly think they made a mistake and back out. There is also Google rankings and other external search engines to think about. If the most commonly searched for title, Battle of the Bulge, is not the H1 title then those external search engines will rank our article on the subject lower. There is also the fact that the mere existence of this article where it is will encourage others to make articles at militarily-correct titles. And I know from experience that many of these will not have redirects to them that will catch spontaneous links to the most widely known title. There is also a POV issue here where a minority usage is subverting a majority one. A similar content analogy would be if a contributor made the God article biased toward critical scientific views. We have well-established naming conventions on these matters. --mav
I disagree. Particularly as half the hits on google for "battle of the bulge" will send you to sites offering you diet advice. Whatever way you look at it though Battle of Ardennes (1944) is incorrect, put Battle of Ardennes in google and Wikipedia comes top and most other sites refer to the WWI battle. So I suggest moving this to Battle of the Bulge, redirecting The Ardennes Offensive to Battle of the Bulge and deleting this page. Mintguy 22:32 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
Oh ... and then The Ardennes Offensive should be used throughout the article. Mintguy
There is no real need to delete this page even if it only becomes an orphaned redirect. External search engines already have it indexed at this title and there probably are many bookmarked links to this page too. But I agree that a move to Battle of the Bulge and the use of the correct military term for this battle throughout the article is in order. This is the same thing I do for widely-known pseudonyms such as Billy the Kid - the article is at the title people expect but the text uses the guy's real name in most of the article. --mav

Google searches:

  • "Battle of Ardennes" -- 180 hits
  • "Ardennes Offensive" -- 6,300 hits
  • "Battle of the Bulge" -- 70,200 hits.

Call it what people expect, THEN educate them. I'm with mav on this. -- Zoe

  • "Battle of the Bulge" + diet -- 5,170. Mintguy 22:32 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

"Battle of the Bulge" -diet = 66,400 -- Zoe

I got 66,000 for this

"battle of the bulge" -diet +calories = 419. LOL ;-) Mintguy 22:40 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

Ohh... one more for the sake of it. Any decent webpage about the Battle of the Bulge must mention the Germans at least once surely.

"battle of the bulge" +german = 19,900. Mintguy 23:05 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

In both World War I and World War II the Allies fondly believed "no one will ever attack through the Ardennes" because of hills, forests, snows, few roads, etc. Whereupon, the Germans attacked twice achieving only partial success both times because it really is a poor place to attack through. Therefore, for reasons of better understanding of European geography and its impact on military action, I say the name Ardennes is best applied to both battles. The Bulge was the result of an attack on weak troops assigned to do nothing but sit in foxholes and wait for the end of the war. It never went from Bulge to rupture because the weak troops fought back and were supplemented by strong troops. Ortolan88

Nuts!

The article says that the general's reply 'NUTS!' was not understood by Germans and non-American allies alike. So would somebody please, for the sake of this 'non-American ally', explain in the article what this reply meant? branko

"NUTS" is American slang for "crazy" or mentally ill. "You're going to do WHAT?!?!? That's NUTS." An insane asylum was known as the "nuthouse." It is also simultaneously a slang word for the human testicles or "the balls," implying manhood or a lack thereof. ("That guy's got nuts the size of grapefruit.") There are therefore several possible implications:

1) The Germans were insane to ask for the Americans to surrender. 2) The Americans knew they were insane to NOT surrender, but refused anyway. 3) The Americans had the courage ("the balls") to not surrender. 4) If the Germans wanted to attack, they lacked "the balls" to do so.

A multiplicity of meanings communicated with a single word, some of them arguably obscene.

clarka

It should be noted that "Nuts" is also used as an exclamatory remark, like "Fuck" or "Shit" except less obscene. This is the sense in which I always interpreted the remark.

Likewise. But I'm now convinced that the good General had quite a specific meaning in mind, and it wasn't insanity. Explanations 3 and 4 are close, but no cigar. Suppose he had been English and had said "Bollocks!" That's what he meant. (My fellow Americans: Say the word but leave out the ock.) I'll bet that a study of contemporary American slang would show that "Nuts" had not only the same literal meaning but the same sense as an exclamation. 209.204.172.194 22:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree, and the Bollocks article gives a very good synonym for this usage: "Rubbish!" I'm going to add this to the footnote, since I think it's closer in meaning to "Nuts!"; I'll leave the "Go to Hell!" bit too, since "Rubbish!" might not be much clearer to non-native English speakers. -- jhf 18:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The 'crazy' theory just doesn't stand up. I've heard 'Nuts' used to mean 'go to hell' in very similar contexts. Also there are reports that what McAuliffe actually said was still one word, but with the same meaning and considerably less polite. Hard to think of a less polite word that meant crazy; very easy to think of ones that meant 'Go to Hell'. I'm chaining the interpretation back. DJ Clayworth 13:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I had always assumed it was simply derived from the then-common slang phrase "nuts to you," a nicer way of saying "go to hell". Shadoks 12:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It probably meant precisely that. See HWO Kinnard's reminiscence: Gave the message to Colonel Harper, who ... gave it to the German Armistice party. The Germans were allowed to take off their blindfold and read the message, and they were puzzled by it. And they were trying to translate nuts. And they said, "Nuets, Nuets, Nuts... Vas Is Das?" They didn't get it at all. And Colonel Harper said, "If you don't understand it, it means go to hell!"

In the book I read "nuts" is clearly along the same lines as "crap, dang, dammit". The man who said it originally, when told Germans were offering surrender questioned whether the Germans were offering too surrender, when told it was the other way around he responded "nuts". And then Colonel Harper added his own definition to the reply.

It would seem to me that Colonel Harper, who had been given the message by McAuliffe, was more than competent to interpret the message. We should make it clear that the interpretation is the one he gave. DJ Clayworth 16:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Laws of War, Uniforms

According to Laws of war, some German soldiers wore American uniforms, therefore not having right to legal protection, so they were killed even after they surrendered. Could somebody explain it here? -- Error 01:58 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

I am attempting to research this, but haven't found any obvious references to a specific incident yet. I was able to determine that a specific S.S. unit was tasked with capturing a pair of key bridges behind Allied lines. They actually did operate behind American lines in jeeps wearing American uniforms, sowing confusion. This unit may have been involved in the Malmedy massacre. Near the end of the battle they were used in a spoiling attack and mostly wiped out.

I think I remember an incident from the movie titled "Battle of the Bulge" which may or may not have been historically accurate. In the movie, an S.S. unit seized a checkpoint behind Allied lines and massacred Americans passing through, dumping their bodies behind the checkpoint. The ruse was discovered and some of the S.S. attempted to surrender but were shot. Could someone who has seen the movie more recently do better? Better yet, can anyone trace down actual historical examples of Allied forces in World War II engaging in reprisal? clarka

The German troops disguised as americans were led by Otto Skorzeny (who also commanded the unit that rescued Mussolini) see http://www.donhollway.com/writing/skorzeny/skorzeny.html Mintguy 21:57, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The unit was the 150th Panzer Brigade, equipped with captured US vehicles and men in US uniforms. The Europa (wargame series) order of battle further identifies it as "Rubenhugel" (missing umlaut?), and classifies it as an OKW unit (Wehrmacht high command, not SS.) B.Bryant 03:41, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For more on this subject see:Talk:Laws of war#False Colours --Philip Baird Shearer 23:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Couple of problems

A couple of problems with the page:

  • The text mentions two competing plans, says "one called for...", but never explicitly completes the contrast. (Presumably the first was the idea of pinching out Hodges and the second was the plan actually implemented? If so, it needs to be made specific.)
  • Could someone please clarify the relation between Wacht am Rhine and Herbstnebel? (Here and in the list of military operations page too, please.)

B.Bryant 16:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This article needs help

This article needs help... I would work on it, but I have mucho English and AP Biology homework to do... no offense to the writers, I'm just saying. I'll work on it tomorrow, most likely. ugen64 02:41, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)


Branko, why did you add "completely incomprehensible"? The reply was totally understandable to the Americans and British; Germans and French probably had more trouble with it. Should we add an explanation of what it meant? DJ Clayworth 14:44, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, what was the "one-syllable" reply that was unprintable? (I can think of several that are more than one syllable :)) Adam Bishop 01:42, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I too can think of many one-word replies carrying the same meaning as 'nuts' but more forcefully. I can well believe that the written reply was just toned down a little. DJ Clayworth 05:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Their was intelligence about the build-up of troops and tanks and supplys by the 67th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of IX TAC flew 242 missions labled successful in the month before Dec. 16th Along withe the 10th Photo Reconnaissance Group of XIX TAC, it compiled a picture of impressive and growing buildups just west of the Rhine-and eventually moving toward the Eifel. The Sightings included trainloads of tiger tank, 50 search lights in one location, and concentrations of hospital trains. Colonel Dickson, the G-2 at Hodges' headquarters at Spa who was more immediately concerned with the Ardennes, issued a lengthy-and afterward much debated-intelligence summary on 12-10-44 designated estimate #37. Also General Strong, according to testimomy, corroborated by Bedell Smith, Strong was so impressed and disturbed by the enemy's capacity to strike with his armored reserve in the Ardennes that about the 1st week in Dec. the SHAEF chief of staff suggested he visit the 12th army group and convey a warning directly to Bradley. Strong said he saw Bradley for three quarters of an hour, but that Bradley replied he was aware of the danger and that he earmarked certain divisions to move into the Ardennes should the enemy attack there. In the Book Eisenhower's Lieutenauts by Russell F. Weigley, Published by Indiana University Press copyright 1974, Part four The Disputed Middle Ground Chapter 17 page 320 Attack in the Ardennes I'm taking some lines about intelligence out for the following reasons. 1) "The lack of radio traffic should have alerted Allied intelligence that something was up". No, the usual interpretation of there being no increase in radio traffic is that nothing is up. Otherwise why bother to use motorcycle couriers? 2) "Enigma was decoding German radio traffic". No, Enigma was encoding German radio traffic. Ultra was decoding it. 3) Use of motorcycle couriers. Added by the same person who added the above two, so I'd like to see a reference before it goes back. We need to be sure that what we write here is correct. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Enigma stuff

That was me with Enigma stuff ... Can't remember the title, but I was referring to a autobiography by one of the (senior) guys at Bletchley.

And the thing about radio traffic was NOT "no _increase_ in radio traffic". I said "lack" of radio traffic. This guy said that, in hindsight, they should have suspected something was up because radio traffic dropped to suspiciously low levels.

I thought it was important to mention specifically because Enigma meant that practically every attempted surprise mounted by the Germans failed. This battle was unusual in that it did achieve surprise, and that was the reason why.

Unfortunately, I can't hunt up the book for reference because last I remember it was at my mother's.

Cheers, Wol

I'm rewriting this article, progress at User:Ugen64/Battle of the Bulge. Problem is, the only good source for anything after the first 2-3 days is the Army document... which is somewhat more complicated to read. Check my progress, make any edits you feel necessary, if you even care. When it's complete, I'll probably do a vote to switch it over, but for now, all I've got is the Prologue, Plan, and first 2-3 days. ugen64 14:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

What's wrong with Dupuy's book? One thing I've noticed is that long narratives tend to bog down because it's hard to calibrate the level of detail that will result in a reasonably-sized article. Consider building skeleton, one sentence per eventual paragraph, then expand it. Stan 16:30, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There's absolutely no problem with it, it's just that it's longer reading... but I like reading ^_^. ugen64 04:10, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Your new article looks good, Ugen. My guess is that your level of detail should be about what you have, or maybe slightly less. I would guess that 3-4 screens full is about the size of article we need. DJ Clayworth 16:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm doing a research paper on the Battle of the Bulge and I'm being asked how it was important. Can Someone help? User:Metallica25

"General Bradley was arrested for a few hours when he answered Springfield". I hate to be a killjoy, but do we have a reference for this? There are dozens of urban legends around the English-speaking battallion, and this scenario begs quite a few questions. DJ Clayworth 20:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Once it was known that the Skorzeny battalion was behind the lines, the word went out with amazing speed - trust no one. The GIs, especially the MPs, questioned everyone, right up to Bradley - who plays center field for the Yankees? Who is Micky Mouse's wife? What is the capital of Illinois? General Bradley was detained for answering Springfield to the last question; the MP insisted it was Chicago. On general was arrested and held for a few hours because he put the Chicago Cubs in the American leage" -- Citizen Soliders, Stephen Ambrose, pg 219. →Raul654 20:28, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
So the "few hours" part is obviously from the next sentence, which is unrelated, but the story itself is true. →Raul654 20:30, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, and my humble apologies for my scepticism. You are a true encyclopaedist. DJ Clayworth 13:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please clarify what the numbers in the table on the right mean, specifically the ones under "Strength"? As far as I know, about 600,000 Americans fought in the Battle of the Bulge (not 80,000) and another 55,000 Britons, against a German force of about 500,000 (not 200,000). (Unless the "men" mentioned are only infantry, in which case that should be clarified as well as the total numbers of servicemen involved.)

The casualty numbers also need explanation, because the actual numbers vary among witnesses, historians and statisticians, and because casualties can mean both the number of troops killed during the battle as well as the number of troops eliminated from the battle (captured, killed, wounded, missing in action, etc.). --JeR 22:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a Belgian and never linked the name battle of the Bulge to this battle. Checked out why it is named so. According to some online resources (e.g. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ba/BattleBu.html) it is because the German offensive created a large bulge/dent in the Allied lines. The source I'm referring to is copyrighted, so I'm not sure if it can be added to the text. Not sure if/howto add this. Anyone? - Tim

Map replacement

I suggest putting this map in the box instead of the current photo, since it shows both the objectives of the offensive and what was actually accomplished on the ground (ie. The penetration by the 5th Panzer army and the utter failure of the 6th Panzer army). It does say a whole lot more about the affair than that photo. GeneralPatton 18:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Battlebox standard is to place a photo/painting in the box, and place maps in the article text. Plus, maps usually aren't usable in thumbnail format, unlike a picture, so I think the photo there is a better idea. →Raul654 18:58, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
I love the current photo, it's just that I looked for a way to bring this map back in because of it's relevance since its the only one that shows the objectives. GeneralPatton 20:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've expanded the aftermath section. I think there's room for it now. Let me see what I can do with it. →Raul654 06:17, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Operation Bodenplatte

I've took the numbers, which differ from source to source, from RAF's History site since it seems to be the most complete and authoritive source. GeneralPatton 15:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tank count

How can this be? 80,000 men, 400 tanks and casualties - 700 tanks destroyed or on the german side 600 tanks and 700 tanks destroyed?

Mathematically it can be like this: At the beginning, germans have 600 tanks. Germans capture 100 tanks. All the tanks get destroyed — but I have no idea about the real world. —kooo 05:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that would just count the other side, I blame my lack of sleep for that. The real answer is, that the article says "(Dec 16 - start of the Battle)". The strength numbers are the ones counted in the beginning, unlike the tanks destroyed that is a total number, it also includes tanks that came into the battle later. —kooo 05:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cream of the German Army?

This is one of the best examples of Wikipedia? The German troops who fought in the battle of the bulge were mostly new recruits, and hardly the well trained troops that were fighting earlier on. With the exception of the SS Panzer divisions, it was mostly a last ditch gamble. The best troops were all fighting in the east. The German troops involved in this battle were about 10% of the total available. No one on wikipedia knows this???

That's a valid point, but I think you are misinterpriting what the article says. When it says "cream", I think it means the "large part of" (preponderence) instead of "the best of" so I have changed the wording accordingly. →Raul654 03:04, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
I think it was me who used 'cream' to begin with, and I still would if no one objected. Yes, the units involved included a loot of noobs, including some that probably should never have been drafted to begin with. But at the end of six months of strategic setbacks on all fronts, and while needing to shore up a ~750 miles of eastern fron that was temporarily stable only because the Soviets had paused to catch their breath after the summer's grand-scale overrun, the German army managed to 'skim' their defenses and factory outputs to assemble and refit a large offensive force that included their most elite mechanized formations, a number of other mechanized formations, elite Luftwaffe infantry, commandos, parachutists, massive concentrations of artillery and rocket batteries, etc. Yes, there were other elite units still operating elsewhere, but not in this kind of concentration. In context I think it's quite fair to refer to it as the 'cream' of the German army.
Change 'cream' to something else if you wish, but please not to 'preponderence', which is very misleading. — B.Bryant 20:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

TBH yes it was a last-dtch gamble and yes it was still the cream of German armed forces. Well, what cream there was left. Even the SS divisions were reliant on reinforcements from just about any German they coudl get their hands on...The Land 21:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We could never have done it without allies like Britain and Texas

I have removed:

Eisenhower later retracted his earlier order, and placed the American armies back under the command of Omar Bradley. Never again would American troops be put under British command.

It is snide and it is not even a Point of View it just wrong.

  1. Eisenhower never retracted his order. The order stood until new orders were issued which in the case of the U.S._Ninth_Army remain under British operational command until April 4 when, after acting as the northern pincer of the Rhur encirclement they passed back to the operational command of the American 12th Army Group. In that time they also fought in many engagements including Operation Grenade in which the co-operated with Canadian troops.
  2. There were other American units under British operational command after this date for example in the supreme allied commanders of both the AFHQ (Italy) and SEAC<-ALFSEA were British commanded.

BTW the section title is a quote taken from a cartoon which appeared in the NYT in 1945. Philip Baird Shearer 17:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The snide comments about Gen. Montgomery in the Allies prevail section (which I do not the above text came from) should be removed; they are definitely not NPOV. I think it will require some rewriting, and probably some research. - jhf 14:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't 'fallschirmjäger' be capitalized? -as

The Human Cost

I wish someone had written about the horrific conditions that the American soldiers (and presumably, the Germans also) had to endure. I have heard that support troops - cooks and truck drivers and the like - were sent to the front as replacements/reinforcements without adequate equipment and many lost their feet to frostbite because of inadequate footwear. Men, in the snow, without blankets or sleeping bags, would sleep standing up, leaning against each other, with their arms around each other's shoulders. I knew, in the late 50's, a man who had risen from an enlisted man to be company commander because his company was reduced by 80% due to casualties during the Battle of the Bulge. He was a natural leader who later, in civilian life, was frequently given advancement to supervisory positions. He invariably soon resigned because he could not stand being responsible for other people - he had seen too many of the men under him killed during the war. Too Old 07:24, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Antwerp

I was under the impression that Operation Market Garden was launched instead of an assault on Antwerp, rather than as a means of capturing the port (as is stated in the article). I could be wrong - I am frequently wrong - but could somebody check this? - Ashley Pomeroy 09:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The objective of Market Garden was to secure a crossing of the Rhine into Germany, by capturing the bridges across the Meuse, Waal and Rhine rivers at Nijmegen and Arnhem.

  • I agree - Market Garden was about bypasing Antwerp. The Land 21:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Yes but it failed and the Allies had to engage in a fighting retreat.


Monkeyturtle 22:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This issue appears to have recent been fixed; you're all wonderful and I love you so. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vague Wording

This passage

Although ultimately unsuccessful, the offensive nevertheless tied down huge amounts of Allied resources, and the slow response of the Allies to the resulting gap in their lines erased months from their timetable

Is confusing. Presumably slow response of the Allies ... is describing a result that is undesireable to the Allies yet erased months is ambiguous. Erased months should be changed to either added months or removed months. Given the connotation and structure of the passage I'm, guessing added months is the desired meaning here. --Funkyj 18:13, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

welcome to fourth grade english

Operation Stösser
Originally slated for the early hours of December 16, because of bad weather and fuel shortages Operation Stösser was delayed for a day with the new drop-time being set at 0300 hrs on December 17, their drop-zone was 11 km north of Malmedy and their target was the "Baraque Michel" crossroads. Von der Heydte and his men were to take it and hold it for approximately twenty-four hours until being relieved by the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitler Jugend", thereby hampering the Allied flow of reinforcements and supplies into the area.

The first sentence of the first paragraph should actually introduce and moderately summarize "Operation Stosser". Ideally, it lightly prepares the reader for interpretation of details that follow. Here instead, the reader must plunge into a monstrous sentence, a string of words stating some factual aside about "Operation Stosser", whatever the heck that is. What was the operation's purpose, how did it relate to the entire battle? The reader does not know. The sentence itself is almost incomprehensible, and poorly explains the operation's delay. The grammar is fine, but the style makes the meaning almost unintelligible. User:Xmnemonic


Err, did you miss "Two major special operations were planned for the offensive; by October it was decided that Otto Skorzeny, the German commando who had rescued Benito Mussolini, was to lead a task force of English-speaking German soldiers in Operation Greif. These soldiers were to be dressed in American and British uniforms and wear dog-tags taken from corpses and POWs. Their job was to go behind American lines and change sign-posts, misdirect traffic, generally cause disruption and to seize bridges across the Meuse River between Liège and Namur. By late November another ambitious special operation was added, Colonel Friedrich August von der Heydte was to lead a Fallschirmjäger (paratrooper) Kampfgruppe in Operation Stösser a nighttime paratroop drop behind the Allied lines aimed at capturing a vital road junction near Malmedy." in the "Planning" section? GeneralPatton 21:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My understanding of "the Ardennes Offensive" is that this is the term the Germans use for it (hence: offensive). How it's rendered in German, I don't know.

Die Ardennenoffensive, codename Wacht am Rhein is also used. GeneralPatton 22:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

German troops lost to the defence of the Eastern Front

From the extensive reading I've done, the main military significance of the Ardennes Offensive from the German point of view was that it seriously depleted remaining German military strength, especially in equipment such as tanks and fuel. This, at a time when every possible resource was needed to stave off the Soviet offensive that the Germans expected early in 1945, following the first Soviet incursion into East Prussia in October 1944, which was repulsed.

The Soviet offensive began on Jan. 13, and the heavily outnumbered German defenders fell back quickly. Red Army spearheads reached the Baltic coast in East Prussia on Jan. 26, cutting off flight from Königsberg, the provincial capital (now Kaliningrad, Russia). Many German military figures asserted that Hitler had squandered resources on the Ardennes Offensive, helping the Soviets overrun eastern Germany, which was subjected to vengeful pillaging by many Red Army soldiers, resulting in many thousands of civilian deaths.

User:sca 1dec04

The articles you should look at are Operation Bagration, Army Group Centre and Battle of Berlin as no article has yet been written about that specific offensive which you mention. The resources committed by the Germans to the Battle of the Bulge (600 tanks, 1,900 guns), would have made very little difference in the East. The Soviets outnumbered the Germans on average by 9:1 in troops, 9 or 10:1 in artillery and 10:1 in tanks and self-propelled artillery. At the start of the Battle of Berlin The Three Soviet Fronts had altogether 2.5 million men...; 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyushas rockets, (nicknamed 'Stalin Organs'); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many manufactured in the USA.
Given that Hitler refused to let the troops west of the Rhine retreat and lost about 290,000 in the Battle of the Rhinelands it is difficult to argue that those he squandered in the Battle of the Bulge made any significat diffrence to the war on the Eastern Front (particularly as he put Himmler(!) in charge of the counter-attack mounted by Army Group Vistula against the Soviet January offensive ). If Hitler had pulled those Rhineland troops west of the Rhine behind the Rhine and used the resources of the Bulge in defence of that obstical, it might have been the Soviets who waited on the Elbe (or in Denmark and on the Rhine) for the Americans and British to arrive rather than the other way around. I doubt that the troops, 600 tanks and 1,600, artillery pieces of the Bulge would have slowed the Soviets down by more than a couple of weeks at most. It would not have stopped the "vengeful pillaging by many Red Army soldiers" and could easily have lead to more civilian deaths not less.Philip Baird Shearer 18:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Background section needs a cleanup

Same stuff is being repeated over and over again, causing the entire section to feel a bit bloated, it could well use a cleanup to streamline it back again. GeneralPatton 22:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge#Allies prevail

Sorry for messing with things where I am not an expert, but anyway you have to agree that now this section answers some questions better than before. Mikkalai 20:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I?m just trying to avoid having things repeat themselves over and over again and keep the into from getting cluttered. GeneralPatton 18:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Battlebox

Shouldn't the UK be included with the USA? No matter the disparity with the amount of forces that participated in the battle, I think they should still be included. In the Korean War warbox, many of the Allies -- no matter their contribution -- are mentioned. SoLando 20:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you list the number of forces present? If it's noteable then they can be mentioned, but if it's minor then perhaps it should be U.S. and Allied forces. Oberiko 01:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the exact figures. Did a check and found this link [1] which has the OOB of British forces during the battle. Could be over 50,000? SoLando 19:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's quite a bit, but I'd wait until some hard numbers of forces commited to combat are given. We don't want this to turn into something where we have to list every nationality that had some number of troops involved (Polish, Norwegian, French, Canadian, South African...). Much better to list only those who were predominantly involved. Oberiko 21:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People seem to like to include their nation in battle boxes even if all they contributed to a battle was a couple of bottle washers. The British did contribute some forecs to the battle but most of the fighting done by the British 21st Army Group was done by the two American Armies attached to the 21st AG. The quickest way to check this is with the casualty estimates in the Aftermath section:

Casualty estimates from the battle vary widely. American casualties are given variously as 70,000 to 81,000 (approximately), British as 1,400; German casualties are estimated at between 60,000 and 104,000.

I do not think that the British contribution was significant enough to include the UK in the Battle Box without distorting the brief overview which the BB gives. Philip Baird Shearer 00:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guns are really what?

"500,000 men, 400 tanks, 400 guns (Dec 16 - start of the Battle)" -- What were 500,000 men doing with only 400 guns? Does the wikireader need to be a savant? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.39.78.68 (talk • contribs) 11:41, December 23, 2005

Quoting from the Gun article:
The term gun is often used as a synonym to firearm, but in its more technical usage refers only to artillery that fires projectiles at a high velocity along a flat trajectory, such as field guns, tank guns and anti-tank guns, and naval guns.
--rogerd 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

NUTS! NUTZ! NUTZ NUTS

Im finding conflicting info on what was written on that paper. Namely, the spelling 'nutz' rather then 'nuts' and and if there is a exclamation point or not. I did add some about the meaning though, as the use of nuts to mean crazy is much more common then to mean balls (which is tends to be used nearly as much nuts as balls to mean testiciles).Muchenhaeser 07:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never heard "nutz" as a spelling of this. I would expect, him being a General, that he could actually spell! After all he wasn't naming a hip-hop album or a washing powder. Sure, if you take the word out of context 'crazy' is the most common usage. However, as a single word, in response to a disagreeable suggestion, I don't think it holds water. The two possible interpretation of the word 'nuts' when it takes its 'crazy' meaning is as an adjective (you are nuts) or a plural (you are a lot of nuts). Neither of these seem to fit, as there is no reason not to use the whole phrase. I think what clinches it for me though is the hints you find in several soures that the reply the messenger was initially told to send was also one word, but not fit to be printed here; and that the official reply had to be toned down. It's easy to think of a one-word obscene equivalent of the 'testicles' meaning and not so easy for the 'crazy' meaning. DJ Clayworth 21:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I searched for sources that quoted NUTZ as the spelling and found only one, and not a good one (in some blog article some guy had written). NUTS is used universally in reputable sources, Unless someone comes up with a reliable source for NUTZ I suggest we leave it out. DJ Clayworth 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting account, by the way. Not suggesting it as a reliable source, but probably gives a flavour. [2]. DJ Clayworth 16:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Accordint to this source [3] there is a Rue Nuts in Bastogne (not Nutz). DJ Clayworth 16:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I would suspect that if the men of the 101st had been schooled in Counter-Strike, then they might have said "Nutz u n00bz!" but since the "z" replacements (mis-spellings) hadn't yet been thought of, "Nuts" is far more likely. --Habap 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Usual anti Montgomery bias

Essentially this article suffers from the same POV problems as all the WWII articles in Wikipedia where Montgomery is a major figure. For example, the delay of Montgomery of a counter attack on Jan 3 rather than Jan 1 is simply dismissed as having no reason. Why not equally question, why the Germans were able to launch the attack in the first place. Why was the defense in the Ardennes forest so thinly spread that it allowed the Germans to break through initially with such devastating effect. To quote the PBS documentary about Eisenhower, featuring historians such as Stephen Ambrose: "The Americans were overwhelmed. One after another their positions caved in. In one instance, 7,000 soldiers surrendered at once. Replacements were rushed to the front. Units which had never seen battle were now fighting on the front lines and getting massacred. The Germans seemed unstoppable." This issue is not even addressed although it shows a major failing on someone's part to defend that area correctly. Montgomery had many issues with Eisenhower's broad strategy before the Battle, and perhaps this was an area he had already drawn attention to as being weak and being in need of more logistical support. Perhaps, Montgomery's more ponderous approach would have prevented the attack in the first place. I don't know, but it needs addressing. This usual anti-Montgomery bias has no place in an encyclopedia that purports to be NPOV, and frankly almost all these articles need rewriting.

A far better and balanced account which could be used as a basis of a decent article can be found here:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/ardennes/aral.htm


In reply to this ... and citing as my authority Ultra sources ...

This seems to be an extreme version of the stress between the British and American approaches to things. Americans are gung-ho, Brits tend to be more cautious.

Patton (and Ike) made very extensive use of Ultra intelligence, Montgomery apparently hated it. So, in this instance, where Ultra failed then yes Monty would almost certainly have done a far better job of withstanding the assault. But on the whole, Patton's approach was better I think.

The thing is, from the Germans' POV the combination was devastating. If you try to build up a defensive wall to keep Monty out, Patton nips round the back. If you try and get mobile to deal with Patton, Monty launches an all-out assault straight through the front door. Lose-lose either way.

The only problem is, as here, when Monty delays an urgent manouevre. Loads of Germans escaped because Monty delayed his pincer intended to cut them off. This sounds horribly like a rerun of the Falaise Gap. And if Monty had pulled his finger out then, this would probably have never happened. The 6th Panzer division (which wrecked Market Garden) should have been trapped and destroyed at Falaise.

(By the way, I'm a Brit, and my sources are British...)

Cheers, Wol

vandalism

Hi, I've never edited a page on wikipedia before but this article appears to have been vandalized:

The breakoutYOU RMOMthe Red Ball Express had been set up, but by the time it reached the Belgian border it had burned five gallons of fuel for every one it delivered. Although the German forces continued to stream rearward, by early October the supply situation was so poor that the Allied armies were unable to make much headway. The general was monkey, afraid of clowns. He jumped off a cliff. Two feet tall. joe

The October 5th version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Bulge&oldid=24846157) appears to be the last without the vandalism. I'm gonna go ahead and revert it, it seems from the guides I've read that that is the correct course of action, just don't want to step on anyone's toes. --Tibs 23:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone is copying your work

This website: [4]is practically word for word with your article. Looks like they simply copied and pasted. Although at the bottom of the page they do say Wikipedia is the source, this is still pretty close to plagerism.

Wikipedia is published under the GNU Free Documentation License, which essentially means that anyone is free to plaguerise us if they acknowledge the source. DJ Clayworth 14:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

vandalism again

By no means am I an expert on World War II, but under Ardennes Offensive on the right hand hand side it says World War 10, the date, place and result are all jokes. Also, the commanders and strength appear to be jokes as well. I don't know the real information, so I cannot fix it. Just wanted someone to be aware.

The best thing to do in a case like this is see who make all these changes. If the jokes and the figure changes were all made by one person just undo that person's changes. DJ Clayworth 14:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)