Talk:Battle of the Bulge/Archive 3

Troy Middleton
How is it that any mention Troy Middleton is missing from the article? Middleton decided to hold Bastogne without consultation with higher authority - he was the highest authority on the battlefield at that time. Patton later said it was "a stroke of genius." -- from the 87th Division's website. I've read Middleton's autobiography which treats the battle in great detail. Middleton commanded the VIII Corps and decided the strategy upon which the whole battle was won. His participation on the battlefield is perhaps worthy of some mention. Frank2040 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge photo
Gentlemen:

At the top right portion of the article is a photo captioned: American soldiers of the 75th Division photographed in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge." However, my father believes that the soldiers shown in that photo are of himself and his squad, members of G Company, 309th Regiment, 78th Division.

My question to you is, how certain are you that the photo is of the 75th Division, rather than the 78th? If you are certain it is of the 75th, what is the source of your information? Thank you for your consideration.

Ryan M. Fountain RyanFountain@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.123.198 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the description according to the US National Archives. ARC Identifier 531239 / Local Identifier 111-SC-198534. ( Hohum @ ) 19:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Although it's very faint, if you enlarge the photograph & look at the regimental shoulder sleeve insignia on the left arm of two of the infantrymen - the one in the forefront & the one on the right -, you can make out the crest of the 290th Infantry Regiment with its characteristic diagonal white kicking mule.
 * http://hldnoqtr.tripod.com/290crest.htm, the one on left - the original.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

English
The variation of English used in the article is pretty inconsistent, so if no-one objects, I'm going to be bold and change the remainder to British English per WP:RETAIN (see first non-redirect edit), Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  12:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Spongefrog, before being bold why don't you read the article in depth (in case you have not done it already!) & see which of the English-speaking forces were most involved in the Battle of the Bulge. If the Brits, then change it to British English, but if the forces of Uncle Sam, then put it in American English. Then, maybe, you could also wait a few hours/days for the opinion of others; otherwise, we may end up with another battle. Personally, I would opt for American English.  --Frania W. (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, about that, I definitely did rush into things there. In can't apologise enough for that...well, I could, but that'd take too long. I thought WP:RETAIN would probably suffice, that's the general way of determining this sort of thing, but now that I've read most of the article, it was probably the U.S. who were most actively involved. WP:TIES could apply if there's consensus for it. Thanks for correcting me before I finished the whole article. I'll happily undo some of my damage, unless someone else comes along and re-disagrees (for which I'll actually wait this time). I'm pretty much neutral on this issue myself, now, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  14:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Frog, there is no need to apologi s e/apologi z e (!) It simply hit me that Bradley & Patton may not have appreciated that one of their biggest battles be described in Montgomery's English. We do not want to step on these big guys' toes! :) --Frania W. (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Well, I'll wait for more comments/consensus before continuing anyways (though toe-stepping isn't much of an issue; with respect, they've both been dead for several years), Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  16:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But Patton believed in reincarnation, so we'd better be careful as he may still be around...
 * --Frania W. (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Although not exclusively so, this battle was mostly USA/Germany, so US English would seem most appropriate. ( Hohum @) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a review of WP:ENGVAR would be a good start. It talks about this very topic.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Casualties:
 * British: a little over 1,400
 * Ricains: approx. 120,000
 * --Frania W. (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion seems to be leaning towards WP:TIES over WP:RETAIN. US English it is. I'll go undo my damage, and fix the rest of the British English, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article will be in US English am I correct?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be agreed, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither should it be written in German, except when naming units, particular types of weapons, etc. In the section Kg. Peiper Drives West, someone used the word (and link) Rollbahn in the phrase, getting back onto his assigned Rollbahn. The link is to an old railroad network. I know enough German to get the pun, but everyone might not, and would waste time on a link to figure it out. Since this fits under Wiki's suggested guidelines of not using foreign words, I am going to change assigned Rollbahn to assigned route. It's easy enough to change back one word if you don't agree. (I don't have the time or inclination to look through the logs to see who put the German word in.)Laburke (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Montgomery
Despite these remarks, the overall impression given by Montgomery, at least in the ears of the American military leadership, was that he had taken the lion's share of credit for the success of the campaign, and had been responsible for rescuing the besieged Americans

Well, it's true, he did. Eisenhower put Montgomery in overall charge of the battle and SHAEF then 'forgot' to tell the press - see Operation Epsom - Normandy, June 1944 by Tim Saunders - Battleground Europe series - Leo Cooper - 2003 ISBN 0-85052-954-9

The fact that Eisenhower put Montgomery in charge of the situation tells the reader something about how bad it actually was. Don't you think that if anyone else could have gotten them out of the mess they were in Eisenhower wouldn't have used them.

The British had to drive their tanks all the way down from the Belgian coast by road to get to the battle, and all some higher-ranking Americans (who should have known better) did was moan about them taking their time. The Belgian coast is at the other end of Belgium to where the battle was taking place, to those for-whom geography is not a strong point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.67.206 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The British tanks never arrived since the battle was over by then. American tanks did everything required. Thank you very much.

Reorg initiated
The various sectors of the battle are generally understood as the north, center, and south, which were attacked by three different German armies. (e.g., see the maps accompanying the article.) I've reorganized the article based on this. I've also noted several paragraphs needing citations. It's hard to see how this was ever a Featured Article. Must get vandalized a lot. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Civilian Casualties
The article mentions 3,000 civilian deaths, and I don't know if that figure includes deaths in Luxembourg. I would like to see a section on the role of civilians, not out of pity for what they had to suffer. The article would only be a greater target for vandalism if eye-witness accounts were given. Besides, most of these accounts are recorded in French. Civilian participation ranged from amusing accounts of Belgian women giving all their sheets and any white clothing to Americans for camouflage, amusing if you weren't a soldier wearing dark clothes in the snow. There are accounts of civilians held up, then shot in view of the American engineers to make them not blow up the bridges on the Amblève river. 3000 civilian deaths doesn't sound very much compared to the American deaths, but consider that the part of the Ardennes where the Battle took place, is sparsely populated.Laburke (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo reconnaissance as warning
The son of FDR was head of photo reconnaissance at the time of the bulge.His book "As He Saw It",Duell,Sloan and Pearce,NY,1946,page 225-226 states' "--just before December sixteenth, I was granted a --furlough. Those orders came through just before the sixteenth;it was on the sixteenth that Hitler launched his breakthrough in the Ardennes. When the news was flashed back to the Pentagon, I was flabbergasted." " The breakthrough meant-I feared-that my outfit was gravely remiss" "only when my temporary duty in Washington was over,and I had flown back to the ETO,did I find that in fact our reconnaissance had been perfectly up to snuff,that the information on the massing of enemy troops behind the Ardennes had all been satisfactorily collated and passed on "through channels"--and then held up or ignored by an unthinking G-2 officer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.53.31 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the following minor change necessary?
Dear fellow Wikipedia users, the German article on the Ardennenoffensive cites casualty numbers that are lower on both the American and the German sides:

German: 17,236,16,000,34,439,67,675. American: 19,276,21,144,47,139,87,559.

The numbers are for killed in action, missing-in-action/captured, wounded, and total respectively. The German article isn't properly cited, but is backed by a considerable number of both American and German sources ranging in publishing dates from 1945 to 2007.

The number of casualties for the Germans in the German article only slightly exceeds the 67,200 total-estimate here-cited in 2003 book by Gordon R. Sullivan, General, United States Army, Chief of Staff. The "Battle of the Bulge Remembered 60 Years Later" here-cited which gives a figure of 100,000 (awfully-round) is by Donna Miles, of the U.S. Army American Forces Press Service, basically a PR service for the Army. The article is not a scholarly one, and carries a public relations without any sources of it's own. MacDonald, Charles B. (1997!), A Time for Trumpets: The Untold Story of the Battle of the Bulge, appears to be misreferenced as a 1998 source and gives the same 100,000 estimate. The book was published much after the authors death (Charles B. MacDonald - December 4, 1922–November 23, 1990 - was a former Deputy Chief Historian...) and therefore must have been written much earlier.

There is a high discrepancy between the U.S. sources, but the most prominent is that the former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army (in service up to 2005) appears with more recent data and seems to overwhelm the other two in terms of credibility (which is what I'm asking to discuss.)

I cannot verify the German sources due to my lack in German language, and Soviet post-war sources that I can read, as a Russian-speaker, I fear have highly-bloated figures due to Communist propoganda - although that is my opinion, and I ask you to disregard it.

The fear I have is that as history gets written, "to-the-victor-go-the-spoils", and the truth behind solid statistics and numbers may be forgotten.

I am asking someone with access to more credible sources to discuss. If you have access and can read any of the German sources, please note which ones are referenced in relation to the figures given, and what discrepancies appear German/American sources given in that article.173.79.151.143 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * * Of note is the comment by Roger Cirillo, author (not Gordon Sullivan, by the way) of Ardennes-Alsace - "No official German losses for the Ardennes have been computed but they have been estimated at between 81,000 and 103,000. A recently published German scholarly source gave the following German casualty totals: Ardennes - 67,200; Alsace (not including Colmar Pocket) - 22,932. Most of the figures cited do not differentiate between permanent losses (killed and missing), wounded, and non-battle casualties." Besides the inherent variation in casualty statistics, the numbers quoted often do not include precise time periods for which they are related, such as the figures quoted by Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Vol. 7, page 632: 10,749 dead, 34,225 wounded, and 22,487 taken prisoner (the total is very close to Cirillo's Ardennes figure above) - and, note, those figures were quoted from other secondary sources and were not the result of primary historical research by the authors of DRZW Volume 7. Another thing to note about these figures is that the category missing is not (explicitly) addressed. Finally, I think it is essential to mention that German record keeping regarding casualties was not particularly good during the last six months of the war and this is probably a key reason why the various casualty estimates vary so widely. Rüdiger Overmans presented a sort of case study of casualty analysis for the German forces in the final period of the war in Deutsche militärisch Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg and he noted that one of the issues with a definitive overall count is that in many cases individual destinies are not known, such as, did Soldier X, who was wounded in the Ardennes, die as a result of his wounds or was he taken prisoner by the Americans, later escape, and then disappear into postwar Europe?, etc. As a side comment, the first edition of MacDonald's work was printed in 1984. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * * Just to round out how strange the business of casualty figures can be, Peter Schrijvers' The unknown dead: civilians in the Battle of the Bulge, p. xiv, quotes Murray and Millett's A War To Be Won (pp. 463-471) and Hubert's Après la bataille, p. 259, as showing U.S. casualties as 19,000 killed, 15,000 captured, and 47,000 wounded. Adding up these figures gives a total of 81,000 -- one of the figures mentioned as a possible estimate of German casualties in Cirillo's work. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * * As best I can tell, the figure of 100,000 German casualties comes from Magna Bauer's The Cost of the Ardennes Offensive, a manuscript prepared by the U.S. Army shortly after the war ended in Europe. These manuscripts were normally based on the memories of German generals and one wonders how much access the author(s) may have had to the necessary records to make a valid estimate. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * * Comment by Hugh M. Cole in The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge (the U.S. Army official account), p. 674: "What all this cost the Wehrmacht is impossible to say. It is known that losses in matériel were very high--and these no longer could be made good. The only general indication of German casualties is found in railroad reports which show that about 67,000 troops were evacuated from the Army Group B area by rail during December. This figure, of course, would include some of the battle casualties from the earlier fighting east of Aachen, as well as disease cases. A number of German division commanders have made personal estimates of the casualties suffered by their own divisions during the last half of December, and in the cases of those formations continually in the line from 16 or 17 December the average is between two and three thousand "combat effectives" lost per division. Whatever the true number of casualties may have been on both sides, it is a fair assessment that over-all, in this particular instance, the troops on the offensive sustained heavier losses than those on the defensive." W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * * The DDR translation of the official Soviet history Geschichte des Zweiten Welt Krieges, Volume 9, page 337, points to page 1362 of Volume IV/2 of Schramm's Kriegstagesbuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (War diary for the German high command in the west). This source states 81,834 as German losses, specified as 12,652 killed, 38,600 wounded, 30,582 missing; while also noting that a differing estimate counted 98,024. Again, the scope of the estimates is critical: in this case, it addresses the period 16 December until 25 January, and appears to be valid for the entire western front, including the German offensive into Alsace in January 1945.  The Soviet history, however, states these figures relate to operations in the Ardennes, which may be a misreading of Schramm's casualty list, as I see nothing in Schramm's list to indicate the figures apply to casualties in the Ardennes only. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Add external link
Please include an external link to the web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge#External_links The name of the external link is http://www.veteransofthebattleofthebulge.org This is the official web site of the Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge. Bulgereader (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Free French Forces" vs. just France
Why is it "Free French Forces"? By December France was completely liberated (excepting the pockets of Germans in several ports and parts of eastern France). Also, although I'm by no means certain, they stopped using the flag with the Cross of Lorraine.

-Talon


 * If it's after Tunisia, they ought to be "Forces of Liberation", not "Free French" anyway, but I'm not sure about emblems. I think they dropped the Lorraine early in the "liberation" phase, as a symbol of reunification with and liberation of Vichy. There was little difference in practice between Free French and GPRF, as De Gaulle led both. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * True enough Andy, although as you point out, by December 1944, Vichy France was gone and there was no point in having a non-Tricoleur contending flag representing France as a nation among the Allies since all Frenchmen were under one government again. I agree that "Free French" is not a particularly apt description at this point, it was the Provisional Government of the French Republic.  If the Wiki article on this is accurate (and I believe it is), the flag of this government was simply the Tricoleur. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the regular French tricolor (tricolore) that should be in the infobox.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think they dropped the Lorraine deliberately before D Day. There was a concern that they could otherwise be seen as establishing a "Gaullist France" as separate to a Vichy France, and the country ending up partitioned even into peacetime. So measures like this were taken to always present them as a unifying force, not merely a force to expel the Germans from the occupied part. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Very simple: each side had its own "symbol", Pétain the francisque & de Gaulle the croix de Lorraine, to which the résistants of the Vercors added the V for either "victory" or "Vercors"; but France, the country, has only one flag with no symbol on it, and it is the tricolore.
 * On 25 September 1944, all French fighting units, including the FFI, were incorporated into General de Lattre de Tassigny's 1st French Army - formerly Army B - which had landed in Provence on 15 August. Naturally, the flag of the French Army was the flag of the Republic, the bleu, blanc, rouge tricolore.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Largest Battle of the War?
Ok, this is confusing me, the article refers to this as "the largest and fiercest battle of the war." Now, what is this referring to? In terms of men it was quite certainly not, with kursk, for example, having nearly 2-3 times as many men involved. Does it mean in terms of the land involved in it? Because that seems very vague. And the "fiercest" seems like a subjective measure at best, not fit for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.228.4 (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For the Americans, with about 500,000 to 840,000 men committed and some 70,000 to 89,000 casualties, including 19,000 killed, the Battle of the Bulge was the largest and bloodiest battle that they fought in World War II. [My emphasis.] ( Hohum @ ) 18:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Germans attacking East?
There are numerous references in the articles (including one section heading) of the Germans moving or attacking Eastward. Surely they were attacking Westward? 70.61.41.218 (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They were. This was introduced around six months ago, presumably a brainfart by the editor who's other additions were OK. Strange that it hadn't been noticed. I have adjusted the text. ( Hohum @ ) 11:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos
Most of the photos and maps have been moved to cover portions of the text. I've noticed this in other articles. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.20.166 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Once accomplished, Hitler could return his attention and the bulk of his forces to the Soviet armies in the east."
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the bulk of Hitler's forces were always in the East. This sentence should be modified, because it is simply misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Using proper English
This page should be written in so-called 'British English', or what I would call proper English, firstly because it is about a battle in Europe, and the English that is used in Europe is 'British English', and secondly, if you're going to quote the rules of wikipedia, an article should be written in the form of English that the original author used. The first person to create this page was a user called 'Tarquin' who is British. VenomousConcept (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ENGVAR. The article has been in American English for the last seven years WP:RETAIN, and involved American troops more than British ones. The nationality of the original editor is irrelevant. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Clervaux
I've created an article on the Battle of Clervaux. Interested editors may want to link it from this article, it seems reasonably notable and relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

NUTS
For those who are still confused 65 years later, could an American perhaps contribute an explanation of what is meant by the response 'Nuts' in this context? The only explanation of it that I can think of is, "Bugger, we've lost." Evidently that is not what is meant, because they didn't surrender and it is regarded as a morale-lifter to the troops. GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I always interpreted it to mean that the American commander thought the German commander was nuts (i.e., not sane) for believing that they would surrender. But I could be wrong.  Famartin (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it just means no, like a Brit saying "Bollocks". Hohum (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Slang an expression of disappointment, contempt, refusal, or defiance" (link). Hohum's translation works quite well. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Number of German soldier
According to Wikipedia, the German troop vary from 200,000 to 500,000. Is 500,000 is a bit exaggerated? According to the book 12thSS Panzer Division, there are only 18 German divisions. More than half are Volksgrenadier, also the German division are understrenght. The book also claim the number of US division initially is 55. I believe that the german number are exaggerated and the US number are too low. Seriously, 55 division and 384 artillery guns. On the German report, their artillery is outnumbered by those of the US ten to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.108.24.168 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the strength / gun quotes depend on the date one is considering. At the start of the battle, German artillery most likely outnumbered the U.S. pieces in the VIII Corps sector.  Likewise, the U.S. had only 3 divisions and part of an armored division in the sector, not sure where the "55 division" quote might come from.  Most commonly quoted German division quantities range around 25 to 26 that took part in the battle during various phases. The German report you're looking at has to be considered in terms of 1) date it was issued and 2) quality of intelligence the Germans had at that point. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can any one tell me the name of the panzer division involve during the battle? 1800 tanks for the German seem to be much bigger than what it really is. There are only 8 German tanks division, and the number of tanks in each german divisions are much smaller than those of the allies. For example, the US armour division consist of only tanks, while the Panzer division has its own artillery, infantry, repair, recon and what ever.


 * Not sure where you're getting your information, but the U.S. armored division had a lot more than tanks -- like the German Panzer divisions, the U.S. divisions had their own infantry, artillery, etc. On German tank strength, the problem with trying to find other quotes is that the 1800 figure is based on the total of German tanks committed to the Ardennes, not just what is present on 16 December 1944.  I can find figures for 16 December; what was sent thereafter until the end of January 1945 or so is not so clear. All I can say authoritatively is that the Germans did not have 1800 tanks for the offensive on 16 December 1944. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See comment below. This is an important history article in Wikipedia, so I am going to ask for some help/comments from people with resources in the MILHIST group. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Strength quotes in battle box
An anonymous editor has mentioned that the strength quotes shown in the battle box, while cited (sort of), may bear further examination. A couple of examples will illustrate the issue. The U.S. tank quote of 1,300 is based on the 1st Army tank strength but apparently does not include 3rd Army tanks, or tanks of the British Army. Cole's quote of 1,800 German tanks is later mentioned as 1,700 to 1,800 tanks and assault guns -- a key change in the data definition. I am also surprised by the variance in the German personnel strength quote -- 300,000 personnel. I am going to ask at MILHIST to see if anyone is interested in fleshing (flushing) out better data. I also believe it would help to provide any quotes based on particular dates rather than trying to estimate total quotes for the entirety of the battle. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Germans got a somehow superiority at the assault area on 16 december, but those numbers obviously do not reflect the real strenght, as the Allies poured lots of units into the battle in the following days. According to Cole on 16 December at the assault area
 * German Artillery was 1,900 (including rocket-launchers) and 394 for the Allies (p. 650)
 * Germans got 970 Tanks + assault guns for the initial assault + another 450 in reserve units. Allies had 470 tanks at the assault area on 16 December (p. 73) (dunno whether that includes tank destroyers, there were "242 Sherman tanks, 182 tank destroyers" on 16 December per p. 650)
 * Allied manpower was 83,000 and 200,000 for the Germans (p. 650)
 * Allied numbers later dramatically rised, but the numbers are hard to get. All i can find in Cole is:
 * Allied artillery was already 4,155 pieces on 23 December (p. 659). For the whole Battle the Germans fielded 1,800 tanks. StoneProphet (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Stone. There's been no response yet at the MILHIST forum, but . . . what we might shoot for here is a table that compares two dates during the battle to compare the relationship of the forces at the start of the battle and then at a point where the Americans had significantly reinforced the Ardennes front. I've got some data on U.S. tank strength for 24 December 1944.  For artillery, we might be able to get a count of battalions if nothing else. I've seen battle box set-ups that include both initial and reinforced strengths, so we can probably work whatever we pull together into the battle box.  I'm hoping someone has a copy of Danny Parker's book as his work is strong on counting equipment and weapons. Thanks for the comments. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took a shot at it with the resources I could find. The battle box now presents the force ratios at start of the offensive as well as some information on reinforcements and later strength quotes. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a table with strenghts from different dates is indeed a good idea. You already made a fine one. However, where did you take the numbers from this heartofeurope site from? I can find only the order of battle there, but no troop strenghts (like those 440 tanks etc.). I ask because i have another book with some slightly different numbers for reinforcements, which i could work in for German reinforcements (the book from Mitcham). StoneProphet (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the vehicle numbers shown on the website (20 JgPz 38, etc.) and ran a total of what was shown. I compared the figures to information in Quarrie's books as well as extensive postings made by Forrest Gopper to the first version of the Feldgrau.com website (which I can unfortunately no longer find on-line).  The vehicle numbers, by type, corresponded fairly well in cases where different sources address them -- there are some small differences, which is why I did not try to exactly specify a number and used a format like "440+" -- the "+" in these cases may vary by up to maybe 20 depending on who counted and which sources they used. Note the figures for "armored reinforcements" includes the II SS Panzer Corps which was not part of the initial attack. Chip away at the data if you believe you've found better sources.  I can provide numbers for each unit that I was able to locate and which led to the numbers I quoted in the battle box. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also reviewed the count and type of artillery battalions on the U.S. side on 16 December 1944. Cole states there were 394 artillery pieces while the German official history quotes another English-language source that there were 504 pieces.  I've tried to make sense of these figures based on numbers of authorized pieces in the battalions but cannot. My "authorized" estimates come close but I'm not sure where Cole or the German history got these numbers from unless they were counting actual numbers available from unit reports. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Well, the Book by Mitcham also gives 394 Allied artillery pieces for 16 December, they probably use the same source. However, Allied numbers are not the problem anyway, its the German ones. It seems the problem the IP pointed out still persists (at least for manpower), as there are no numbers for the Germans during the main fighting at the end of December. 500,000 men are very much, thats probably the number of Germans during the Allied counteroffensive during January? Because e.g. according to the Mitchhams book, German reserves for the initial fighting was only 55,000 men and 561 tanks/assault guns (But he also states the Germans launched the attack with 250,000 and not 200,000 men). That would still make only around 300,000 men, and i dont think the Germans magically found another 200,000 men in a few days. Or maybe they just count differently (counting non-fighting personnel or include German units which did not take part until the later Allied offensive)? StoneProphet (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Stone, I think your last comment is the heart of the issue. The quotes we have for the most part don't identify exactly what they're describing -- combat strength, total strength, etc. The "500,000" (also have seen "almost 600,000") is quoted by several authors but I don't have their works and when I can find the work on-line, it doesn't describe the number. My strong opinion is that it may be too high. I could compare, say, the "divisional slice" for units of a 1944 Heeresgruppe with a known strength from German reports and then work an estimate for what Heeresgruppe B's strength could have been for the Bulge -- but it won't mean anything for a Wikipedia article.  Another thing I have seen is a tendency for some authors to bundle the Ardennes and Alsace figures together as if it was one big event (that's why this article had the 800,000+ quote for Allied forces before, even though Cirillo's work quite clearly states that only 610,000 of that figure is allocated to the Battle of the Bulge.) So again -- we have these quoted figures but no key to truly understanding them. My initial guess, without any analysis, is that Army Group B was probably somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 in strength -- total, not just combat elements, and including 15th Army (which may also be counted in the strength quote even though it played no real role in the battle). W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Army Group B with its ~29 divisions had indeed only 300,000 men. Cole says the average German Division had only ~10,000 men (650-651). So even if you sum them up (you already did that too as i see on my talkpage) we get exactly ~300,000 men. So i guess the higher numbers must include more units than those 30 Divisions which were committed by the Germans for the December fighting. We have to find a solution for the infoxbox, so i guess its save if we say that German strenght during the December fighting was 300,000 men? Thats at least supported by Cole (indirectly) and by Mitcham. I have none of the sources which claim 500,000 men (currently only one is included?), so i cant check what they say exactly. But maybe we can state that 500,000 men was for January including Nordwind, since we can safely assume that it is impossible that Army Group B had so much soldiers during the December fighting? Then we could also reinsert the 840,000 men figure of Cirillo for Allied strenght (just for comparision, since Nordwind is mentioned in this article too). StoneProphet (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading, possibly innaccurate, suggest change
This: "During World War II, most U.S. black troops still served only as truck drivers and as stevedores.[94] In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge, General Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing military units—all of which were totally white in composition. Consequently, he made the decision to allow African American soldiers to pick up a weapon and join the white military units to fight in combat for the first time.[94] More than 2,000 black soldiers had volunteered to go to the front.[95] This was the first step toward a desegregated United States military."...is misleading and not totally accurate. There were black, albeit segregated, American combat units in Europe during WWII, so "to fight in combat for the first time" is not accurate, likewise with "all of which were totally white in composition". I suggest a more accurate wording change be made. For example, see 761st Tank Battalion (United States) and Tuskegee Airmen. FYI, the 761st was part of Patton's Third Army, which took part in The Bulge. And according to this in the 761st wiki article: "During the Battle of the Bulge, German soldiers who had raided American warehouses were reported to have disguised themselves as Americans guarding the checkpoints in order to ambush American soldiers. Patton solved this problem by ordering black soldiers, including the 761st, to guard the checkpoints, and gave the order to shoot any white soldiers at the checkpoints who acted suspiciously.[4]" the 761st DID serve at The Bulge. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The current article starts with a full two paragraphs about the different names the battle has been known by, their origins, and so on. Shouldn't a big article like this start with a nice, overview paragraph that includes brief statements about: dates, location, purpose, outcome, significance etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.42.29.35 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

American war crimes?
An editor keeps adding a section on American war crimes. Neither source backs up the assertion. It appears that the Germans weren't allowed to surrender after using local citizens as human shields/sacrifices. The sources make no claim of any war crimes nor any POWs. (p. 303 of this book)

I've left a warning for synthesis on the editor's talk page but thought I'd leave a note here for posterity. ⋙–Ber<b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 01:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert in this area, but I think the author is writing about the Chenogne massacre. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Footnote #91
The 108,000 casualties suffered listed in US DOD "Army battle casualties and nonbattle deaths in World War II" cited in this article refers to total casualties in the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign, which includes two German operations, "Wacht am Rhein" and "Norwind", while the Battle of the Bulge in this article only refers to the former. I submit that this distinction should be mentioned to avoid confusion. Thank you for the good work. Jonathan Chin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.102 (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Code of "Nuts" = 74
I revised the following... Despite determined German attacks, however, the perimeter held. The German commander, Lt. Gen. Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz, requested Bastogne's surrender. When Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st, was told of the Nazi demand to surrender, in frustration he responded, "Nuts!" After turning to other pressing issues, his staff reminded him that they should reply to the German demand. One officer, Lt. Col. Harry Kinnard, noted that McAuliffe's initial reply would be "tough to beat." Thus McAuliffe wrote on the paper, which was typed up and delivered to the Germans, the line he made famous and a morale booster to his troops: "NUTS!" That reply had to be explained, both to the Germans and to non-American Allies. ref group=notes - All military communications were encoded and the most basic cipher was/is Simple(74) English(74) Gematria(74) with the key:(74) A=1...Z=26. Nuts = N14+U21+T20+S19 = 74. GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD, Good(7__4) Friday with Jesus(74) the Messiah(74) on the Cross(74). - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All I can say to this nonsensical analysis is "Nuts!" Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to
This article is a good candidate for conversion to templates, as it already is using Harvard style citations. Using the sfn template means that the tags can be omitted, and any citations that are used more than once are automatically collated. Improvements can be undertaken with the online sources as well. If there are no objections, the work will be started sometime in the next week or two. Please post any comments or discussion in the meantime. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

casualty questions
They just seem a little excessive. Do we have quotes from the sources to back them up? In addition the US Green series place the American losses as 471 tanks in December, did they really loose 300 more tanks counterattacking routing forces? - EnigmaMcmxc

The UK Official history places the American losses at 75,482 (8,497 killed, 46,170 wounded, and 20,905 missing) although the US Green series does appear not to provide a total figure. Is there any information on why this figure is several thousand lower than the sources used?
 * Apparently Parker's book states 733 U.S. tanks and TD's were lost in the Ardennes. You should take a look at the sources cited. The figure for U.S. losses is from a Dept. of Defense-provided article. Also, check out the source listed as "Cirillo", page 52 (it is online at http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/ardennes/aral.htm ) W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"largest and bloodiest battle"
This is obviously wrong, despite having 6 sources. There were many battles on the Eastern Front that involved many times the number of soldiers and casualties as were involved in the Ardennes Offensive (Battle of Kursk, Battle of Stalingrad, Second and Third Battles of Karkhov, Siege of Leningrad). What is actually meant here and what do the sources actually say? The battle was the largest and bloodiest battle on the Western Front? The largest battle fought by Americans? If they are saying something respect to the whole war there must be some other qualification, such as the largest and bloodiest fought over a one month period or something such as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.187.123 (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence starts with "For the Americans". StoneProphet (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Squabble over maintenance supplies immediately prior
The Field Marshall became exasperated with Eisenhower for several reasons, and the main one led to the tension over a shift in maintenance supplies. Montgomery had been in France in the First World War, and knew the slaughter a broad front of attrition would bring, and how it would prolong the war. Eisenhower having never been in battle, yet taking command of all land forces from Montgomery led immediately to a fiasco. He had no effective communications, his HQ were in Versailles, he had no concept of strategic or tactical battle planning, and functioned as a "get along" fellow, keeping peace between commanders. During the planning of Operation Comet, which became Operation Market, which finalised as Operation Market Garden, Montgomery attempted to impress upon Eisenhower the importance of giving the enemy, "a good crack," by putting all one's force behind a lightning push. This required maintenance supplies. After some disagreement, Eisenhower relented, promised Monty the supplies, then immediately backtracked when Bradley complained. Hence, Operation Market Garden (OMG) was only a limited success, and did not get the Allies into the Ruhr. The 3-front plan was actually Bradley's, encouraged by Patton, to whom Bradley remained subservient, though superior in rank. This led to a debacle where no "grip," or tight control of any front--apart from Montgomery's sector once he was given command North of the Ardennes at the onset of Bulge, as acknowledged by German commanders postwar. The basic problems Montgomery faced with SHAEF were communications (Bradley failed to make contact with his field commanders during most of the entire battle), Ike's lack of ability when it came to warfare, Bradley's out-of-character jealousy and animosity, Patton's egging on of reckless wastage of the general soldiery, and several factors which counterpointed America's claim it had, "Come into its own," during the war. It was not ego or boast--Monty was a professional attempting to do a job as efficiently as possible. He warned Ike something would happen, which SHAEF not only ignored, but ridiculed, for months, and officers such as Bradley, Eisenhower, Patton, their AsDC, and the American Press Corps worked to characterise Monty as the one at fault. Calling it a squabble over supplies is shallow, Amercentric, and uninformed. Fix the damned thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.126.11 (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Any reliable sources which have these viewpoints?

Casualties?
It would really be a useful addition to this article if the number of German and of civilian casualties in this series of battles was added. I'm sure this information can be found in some source, there is so much literature on WWII. 63.143.229.182 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * German military casualties are given on the right side under "Casualties and Losses" in the battle box. W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo Caption
The text in the picture on the first page of the "Battle of the Bulge: article is in error. The 117th Infantry Regt was in the Battle of the Bulge, but if you will check your archives you will find that the 117th Infantry Rgt. was Tennessee National Guard instead of North Carolina National Guard.  The 117th was part of the 30th Inf. Div.  I know this as my father and uncle were both members of the 117th.  I was also a memeber of the 117th Inf. from 1963-1969.  I hope that you change this text.  The 117th Inf. had a proud history in WW1 & WW2.  The 117th Rgt. Crest had the 3 stars from the Tennessee State Flag and the words "Break Through" it's motto for helping to break the Hindenburg Line in WW1.  The 117th is no longer active in Tennessee.  I have met a lot of 117th veterans, now many of them deceased, who were extremely proud of their service in the 117th Inf. and the 30th "Old Hickory" Division. Please correct this article.

Thanks,

Paul D. Bullington TN Air National Guard (Ret.) Former member of HQ & HQ Co. 3Bn. 117th Infantry Tennessee National Guard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbull (talk • contribs) 05:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Changed per comments above. "U.S. Army Order of Battle 1919-1941 Volume 1", p. 414, confirms the 117th was part of the TN NG, not the NC NG. The photo caption on Wikimedia Commons is in error. The work above is available on-line here. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

500,000 men German strenght
The 500,000 number of strenght for the Germans was recently added by an IP again. The problem is, that this number definitely include Nordwind too (3 of the 4 sources given state on the same page that German casualties are at 120,000 - over 130,000 men, so its obvious that they include Nordwind too). From the last discussion in archive 3 we came to the conclusion, that the box just should contain bulge, and not Nordwind. So I am removing this number again. StoneProphet (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 26, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Allied Air Craft Loss
Information box says hundreds of German planes were destroyed, what about US plane losses?Ovsek (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Article structure
The article only gives cursory treatment to the Allied counteroffensive part of the battle after presenting long passages of text about German offensive operations. Combat like that of Lutrebois is not mentioned at all. This can be addressed with edits, but I'd like to hear what other editors think. In its present state, the article is already lengthy.

I don't like the section "German counteroffensive" -- the section title is borderline misleading, and the German surprise air attack to the north is presented in tandem with the Nordwind Offensive as if they were part and parcel of the same operation. Same front, okay; but I'm not convinced there was much operational binding of the two. Nordwind itself seems to get almost too much mention for an article about the Battle of the Bulge, it seems like it should be mentioned in passing -- pointing out that movement of U.S. troops to the south in response to the Bulge improved German prospects for the Nordwind Offensive. Comments ? W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to the German casualty figures
In February 2012, user StoneProphet and I looked up a fair amount of material to establish good strength, reinforcement, and casualty figures for both sides with regards to this article. Although our efforts were diligent, some of the figures are simply not known to exact totals, and thus a range is given for the German casualty figures along with the sources providing those figures. Since February 2012, a couple of edits were made to the German casualties figure.

This one was made on 25 February. Unfortunately, no citation was provided and the IP contributor stopped editing Wikipedia within a month of making the edit.

This one was made on 16 December. It breaks out German casualties by category. Again, unfortunately, no source is provided. Worse, the total provided in this case was nowhere near the total provided by the 25 February edit.

Edits of this kind are welcome if they are sourced, and the source is considered reliable. Otherwise, they will be reverted. Concerns and questions about the German casualty figures can always be discussed on this talk page.

A comment on the quoted figure of 84,834 German casualties (from the edit of 25 February). This figure can be found on many internet sites, such as The Germans had 84,834 casualties including 15,652 dead, 27,582 MIA and 41,600 wounded. I have yet to see a firm source although the sites almost always quote the information as being from the "German High Command". Notably, a figure almost exactly the same, but minus 3,000, is given as a contemporary German estimate, the difference being the total of dead is quoted at 12,652 -- this mentioned in L. F. Ellis' Victory in the West, Volume 2, page 195. (This work is part of the United Kingdom's official history of the war.) But what is notable here is that Ellis accurately characterized the figure as a contemporary estimate. By the time the worldwide web arrived, this estimate was presented as an accurate total with exact losses by category. The problem is, of course, that the exact losses are not known and these figures were, and remain, an estimate formed by primary research. It is because of situations like this that the determination of casualties for battles remains problematic.

W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The battle for St. Vith. Some errors
Hi,

I am a brand new contributor so I cannot make any changes myself. I would point out the following:

1. The text "The defenders, led by the 7th Armored Division and including the remaining regiment of the 106th U.S. Infantry Division, with elements of the 9th Armored Division and 28th U.S. Infantry Division, all under the command of Gen. Bruce C. Clarke" is incorrect. Bruce Clarke commanded Combat Command B of the 7th Armored Division and was under the command of the Division commander Robert Hasbrouck. The remnants of the 106th were under the command of Alan Jones. So it was a joint command under the two division commanders.

2. The text "At Montgomery's orders, St. Vith was evacuated on 21 December" is incorrect. The US troops (CCB 7th Armored Division) were driven from St. Vith on 21 December. The CCB 7th Armored Division did fall back to positions west of St. Vith on 21 December.

3. Montgomery did order the withdrawal of all forces ( 7th Armored Division, remaining 106th U.S. Infantry Division, elements of the 9th Armored Division and 28th U.S. Infantry Division). The order was given on 22 December with the withdrawal taking place on 23 December.

The above can be referenced to Cole as follows.

1. Command St. Vith forces. Pages 393-394

2. Montgomery's order to withdraw. Pages 412-413 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sports fan 475 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Sports fan 475 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Full controversy speech from Monty
A long quote from Montgomery has been added to the Controversy at high command section. This is a bulk WP:Primary source, where Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. We shouldn't expect readers to analyze this full speech themselves. Can we replace this with some sourced synopsis? If not, maybe it should simply be removed. Really, the speech itself isn't significant; it's the interpretations of it by the people at the time (which, in my mind, seems more based on Monty's previous rep than the actual words he chose). --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a synopsis which was inaccurate, being selectively worded so as to imply that Montgomery was giving himself all the credit - the 'He' in the original speech referred to the Germans, not Montgomery, however I corrected it at around the same time I added the full quote.


 * The synopsis as it stands is still misleading as it implies that Montgomery was unduly slow in introducing British forces, whereas he makes it obvious in the speech that British forces were introduced slowly and gradually so as not to disrupt the US lines of communication - i.e., to prevent possible confusion between US and British forces at a critical time and to prevent possible disruption in communication between US units already in the thick of battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.139 (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Lengthy Montgomery speech
The lengthy and complete speech by Montgomery is too long and not germane to the core of the article. If it's relevant in any way, it can be added to Wikisource. Unless someone objects, I will move it there. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, see the previous section. ;)  It's been a week since this was asked in this talk with no other response.  Go ahead and wikisouorce.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The speech is relevant because so much of it was and is quoted inaccurately and out of context, such that erroneous meaning was read into it, leading to controversy both at the time and today. The fact is - which is obvious from reading the full text - that Montgomery at no time cast any negative aspersions at the US commanders - which he is often accused of doing - in fact he bent-over-backwards to make plain that the whole recovery from the situation was a team effort. So, the accusations against him are plainly false, and untrue.


 * Having the full text of his speech in the article makes it plain to any reader that the accusations made against him - which are, at least in the US, still widely reported as fact, and indeed are included in the article itself - are untrue, and that for whatever reasons, he was misunderstood. The reasons for some people preferring to do the latter rather than finding out what he actually said, the readers of the article can work out for themselves.


 * BTW, the full text of this speech was published in Montgomery's memoirs in 1958 and the speech itself contains no difficult words or meanings, being written in plain enough English, so why so many people seem to have had trouble understanding what he said at that conference, your guess is as good as mine.


 * If you prefer, feel free to move the quote to a separate page, as long as the reader can still read what he actually said, that's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.139 (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments like "erroneous meaning", "the fact is", "which is obvious", "he was misunderstood", and especially "your guess is as good as mine" are all symptoms of WP:OR, which is a Wikipedia policy that we are not allowed to violate. We cannot participate in any drive to correct history, however incorrect it may be.  History says that some Americans were upset with the speech; we must report that, even if we don't understand why.  Maybe they misheard it, misinterpreted it, misremembered it, or maybe Monty did; we don't know, and it wouldn't matter if we did.  Wikipedia exists to collect and reflect respected secondary sources, not correct them.  If Wikipedia was to have readers "work it out for themselves", it would become nothing but a few bare links to primary sources.


 * Primary sources are not relevant here. It should be moved to Wikisource, or just removed.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As I recommended above, just move it to a linked separate page, that way the reader can see for his/herself and make his/her own mind up, rather than having an editor making the decision for them.


 * The speech is very relevant as it is referenced in the article text, not only that but it is stated in the article text to have had inter-Allied repercussions due to its content. The full text of the speech makes it clear what was actually said, as opposed to what others supposed it said. The reader is then able to draw their own conclusions rather than having to rely on mis-reported or mis-heard meanings that some people at the time took to be true, and that have been repeated by some ever since.


 * Accusations were made against Montgomery - who kept silent at the time rather than defending himself - which are repeated in the article, and the speech gives the other side of the story. The reader can then make their own mind up. The fact that the Americans - for whatever reasons - understood the speech to mean one thing, whereas Montgomery wrote it as meaning something else, is germane to the subject. The full speech text makes what was actually said at the conference available to the reader, as opposed to being given possibly selective extracts slanted to give a particular meaning unintended by the original writer of the speech. That latter type of thing is termed propaganda and is the sort of thing worthy of the Völkischer Beobachter or Pravda.


 * Leave the speech in, or move the text to a new page with a link, then the reader can decide on the legitimacy of the allegations made against Montgomery for themselves. They are then of course, also free to form their own opinions of the people making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.139 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the lengthy press conference text and moved it to Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. I could not add it to Wikisource since the content is copyrighted. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 06:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yikes! Seriously?  If it's copyrighted, we cannot include it anywhere -- WP:COPYVIO!  --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * <forehead_slap>Duh!</forehead_slap> — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous statement about who planned the German offensive.
The article makes the claim that "Eric von Manstein planned the offensive with the primary goal to recapture the important harbor of Antwerp." and provides two sources.

This is wrong. Manstein had nothing with this offensive whatsoever to do. He was already living in retirement when the offensive was planned. So this sentence should be removed.

Manstein planned the German offensive in the west 1940, not the one in 1944.

LennartFr (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I just saw the same: I think this indeed is a mistake but I can't check the sources which were provided. I'll remove the sentence though as it's clearly faulted -- fdewaele, 12 May 2015, 18:23 CET.

Unsourced caption for photo purported to be M1 Garand
1. While the M1 Garand was the most commonly distributed rifle to U.S forces during WW2, it was not the only rifle used by U.S forces during the Alsace-Ardennes Campaign and there were other combatant countries including British, Canadian, French, Benelux, as well as German troops. Any weapon without a visible clip and clearly not a machine gun could have been used. Therefore, it could be a M1A1, a Springfield M1903A3, or a M1917 Enfield (you wouldn’t see the bolt from the left side of the rifle); or a Lee-Enfield No. 3, Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 1, No. 5 Mk I or .303 Pattern 1914 from Britain; the French Berthier 1907/15 rifle or MAS-36; or the Mauser M1936/ 98, Gewehr Models 41, 43 or 98 or the Kar98k, all of which were on the Ardennes battlefield.

2.The ORIGINAL photograph source is on page 275 of “United States Army in World War II, Pictorial Record, The War against Germany: Europe and adjacent areas”, from the U.S. Center for Military History. http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/012/12-3/CMH_Pub_12-3.pdf. The original caption reads: “Infantrymen fire at German troops in the advance to relieve the surrounded paratroopers in Bastogne. In foreground a platoon leader indicates the target to a rifleman by actually firing on the target. In Bastogne the defenders were badly in need of relief, they were attacked nightly by German aircraft, supplies were critically low in spite of the airdrops, and the wounded could not be given proper attention because of the shortage of medical supplies. After an advance which had been slow, U. S. relief troops entered Bastogne at 1645 on 26 December 1944.” Nothing about an M1 rifle. Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, not for opinions or guessing (viz., the rhetorical comment, “What else could it be?”) which constitutes original research. Therefore the the verified original photo source caption was substituted.N0TABENE (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

American or British English?
I've tagged this article as American English, as that's the way it's been for as long as I know. Recently, a couple of editors have been rapid-fire changing things to British English, notably "armour". I've been reverting, but I've exhausted that route by now. The British-spelling editors are quite persistent.

Am I wrong? Should the article be in British English? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * After several days, with no reason given for British English to counter WP:ENGVAR, I consider this closed. I've restored the established American English.  Please be careful on spelling in the future.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Later parts of the battle
While expanding Battle of Elsenborn Ridge, I've found that the existing article covered the timeline for the Battle of the Bulge on the northern shoulder until about December 26. This was when the German attempt to capture Elsenborn Ridge sputtered out and when Kampfgruppe Peiper literally ran out of gas. But there was considerable action on the northern shoulder well after that point as the Americans counterattacked and pushed the Germans back to the original main line of resistance when the Ardennes Offensive began on 16 December.

Any input? A D Monroe III, LennartFr, N0TABENE, fdewaele, Witnessforpeace, JuanRiley, Hohum, Dodgerblue777, Calendar5, do you have any input if this additional action should be added to the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge or—I suspect the better option—spun off into a separate article. If a separate article, what should it be named? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done)


 * I'm interested in the battle to "erase the bulge", but I'm not sure it needs its own article. I can't even think of a good name for it.  People seem to see that part as anti-climatic.


 * But there's certainly more to be said about this in the current articles; there's little to nothing right now. If I recall correctly, American casualties were higher than expected in this phase.  We need a few sources, however, not my faulty memory.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if there was an article, it might be named Battle of the Bulge Counteroffensive. wdyt? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's a fair name (though not very catchy, and would need lower case for "counteroffensive" since its not a proper noun). Is there enough sourced info to make a separate article?  IDK.  We should probably just add/expand the current article with this first, and see how big it gets.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll see how much content this adds, though I'm focusing on the northern shoulder in the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing/Bad references
In a move to help restore this article to Good Article status, I have identified several Harvard-type references that don't appear to be among the bibliography or are otherwise inconsistently formatted. I found that the style of references also varies quite a bit. I am going to unify the type of references used and will fix the references needing attention over the next two weeks. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Recommended article split
Both this article and Battle of Elsenborn Ridge are 116K, which is TOOBIG per WP guidelines. I suggest splitting both articles and creating one new one to address the aftermath and outcomes of the battle, perhaps titled "Battle of Bulge aftermath".

In this article, "Battle of the Bulge", we could move:

8 Strategy and leadership
 * 8.1 Hitler's chosen few
 * 8.2 Allied high-command controversy
 * 8.3 Montgomery's actions

and in "Battle of Elsenborn Ridge", we could move:

6 Impact of the battle
 * 6.1 Disproportionate German casualties
 * 6.2 Media attention

7 Weapons and tactics
 * 7.1 German combined arms
 * 7.2 American innovations and tactics
 * 7.3 Artillery role

Additionally, the article Battle of Lanzerath Ridge has a section containing more overlapping content:

4 Aftermath

Both of the existing articles would then end with the renewed and failed German counterattack. I did a very quick and dirty merge of these various sections here. The resulting article is 43kb which would allow for some expansion to better cover the conclusion of the battle and the lead up to the Western Allied invasion of Germany.

We should also consider:


 * In the Battle of St. Vith, it might also be desirable to move (leaving a summary) the Aftermath section, although that article is only 40kb.


 * In the Siege of Bastogne, there is a very negligible Aftermath section that would be vastly improved by linking to the new article.


 * Lastly, the minor article Battle of Bure contains an Aftermath section as well, though given the brevity of that article, I wouldn't recommend moving much out of there, but merely summarizing it in the new article.

I think splitting these articles is highly desirable, though I'm not sure about the title. Ideas and suggestions, anyone? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:The Pittsburgher, User:A D Monroe III, User:Beyond My Ken, User:Lux-hibou, User:N0TABENE, User:Wikiuser100, User:CJK, do you have any thoughts or suggestions? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me how competent military historians deal with these battles? BMK (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The books and articles I've read tend to focus, as does this and the related articles, on the initial German offensive and the Allied efforts to turn them back. They then tend to skip over the closing days (about December 28 - January 30) of the Allied push back to restoring the lines as they had been before the battle began, and the segue to the Rhineland Offensive. I don't suggest that the proposed Aftermath article cover all that period, but there was significant fighting in several sectors once the German advance was stopped. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * btphelps I think splitting the articles and having a single aftermath discussion is a very good idea, to improve the readability (and maybe get it kicked up from a C-Class article), and you did an admirable job as a first draft. But it also needs to be a standalone article, and the way it looks now there's no real intro to the intent of the article. I think that is easily fixed to put it into some context. The question of what to include is paramount - should this just be a recitation of the chronological timeline of the events after the front lines were restored, or should there be more analysis of the results of the Battle and the subsequent fighting. I was recently at a symposium on Gen. Jacob Devers of the VI Army Group who was in the south and was immediately caught up in Operation Nordwind and the closure of the Colmar Pocket after the Bulge, and he was stymied by the diversion of part of the 7th Army to support the right flank of the Third Army. What I would envision is this new section would overlap the multiple fronts that happened to be going on during the first 2 months of 1945, which seems to be what you are proposing. N0TABENE (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:N0TABENE, thanks for the reply. Yes, I think the new article would cover all the fronts and the resolution of the Battle of the Bulge through the restoration of the lines as they had been on December 16. Certainly my very quick draft needs more context. I imagine a closing chronology of the events, a winding up of the overall Battle, with an analysis of why the Germans failed so badly. I wasn't aware of Devers' issues, perhaps you would be able to add that perspective. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * btphelps Absolutely. There's a book called "Decision at Strasbourg" by David Colley that discusses Dever's plan to invade Germany from the south a month before the Battle of the Bulge, which would have diverted German troops southward away from the Ardennes. Eisenhower told him to stay west of the Rhine. Good read. Would be happy to help work on a new section. N0TABENE (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * User:The Pittsburgher, User:A D Monroe III, User:Beyond My Ken, User:Lux-hibou, User:N0TABENE, User:Wikiuser100, User:CJK, to allow and encourage other editors to contribute to the article under development, I moved it out of User namespace to the Draft namespace here. Please take a look and let me know what you think or just take a whack at improving it. Thanks. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 06:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox "Strength" list length
The "Strength" list in the infobox is quite informative, but also quite long for an infobox. I would like move the bulk of this valuable information into a separate table for ease of use, and reduce the infobox to just the starting and ending numbers of infantry/armor divisions/brigades only. The table can be formatted for easier visual comparison by lining-up by date and type, and color-coded by Axis/Allied. Any comments before I do this? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Example:


 * --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Done in this edit. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Odd Section
Well this is odd. "Allied high-command controversy[edit]

On the American side, most of the upper levels of leadership above division level took themselves out of the battle due to poor handling of intelligence, and the decision not to provide a mobile reserve force for meeting unforeseen contingencies.[105]:162

One of the fault lines between the British and American high commands was General Dwight D. Eisenhower's commitment to a broad front advance with no strategic reserve. This view was opposed by the British Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Alan Brooke, who promoted a rapid advance on a narrow front, with the other allied armies in reserve.[105]:91 This basic disagreement was the wedge Hitler hoped to exploit with his counteroffensive, and the fact that a breakthrough was achieved seemed to justify the British objections. Also the British remembered a similar German armored counterattack at Kasserine Pass in North Africa, where the American army was routed by the German strike, once again confirming the British conservative view of strategy.[106]:339"

The first paragraph is completely nonsensical. I would like to delete it unless someone can translate. The second is grammatically a lot better but still mostly nonsense. Again I suggest removal unless someone can explain what this is supposed to mean. Thanks. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I pared this section way down. There was indeed a controversy but this section did not remotely describe it accurately. It needs a lotof work but at least the worst of the nonsense is gone. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of the Bulge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318155306/https://www.benning.army.mil/monographs/content/wwii/STUP2/FabianichKeith%20P.%20MAJ.pdf to https://www.benning.army.mil/monographs/content/wwii/STUP2/FabianichKeith

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"It was the largest and bloodiest battle fought by the United States in World War II..."
This statement is in the opening of the article. Is it really appropriate? The Battle of Okinawa seems more deserving of the title of "bloodiest battle fought by the United States in World War 2", if we're just accounting for the number of Americans that died. If we're not, then it would be the Battle of Luzon for the high number of Filipino civilian casualties. But I digress.

Bulge: Americans killed: 19,000 Americans wounded: 47,500

Okinawa: Americans killed: 20,195 Americans wounded: 55,162 --Nihlus1 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Point well taken. I modified the lede accordingly. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It remains the largest US Army battle of WW2 (and history). On Okinawa, of course, the engaged forces included the US Navy and Marine Corps as well as the Army. In the bulge it was all Army. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was largest battle the US Army "participated" in. It was not just the US fighting. 90.213.249.104 (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, it was merely 99% US Army. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Bulge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://137.248.11.66/attachments?lang=de&barcode=06-024
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316223411/http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go4863.pdf to http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go4863.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Bulge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728173150/http://www.wereth.org/_en/en_history.php to http://www.wereth.org/_en/en_history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

lLuxembourgish resistance
hello, could somebody in the upper right box please change "luxembourgeois resistance" to it's correct english form : Luxembourgish resistance? luxembourgeois resistance is french, in english it is luxembourgish resistance. it's like saying deutsch resistance instead of german resistance. please use english spelling in english articles. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letzebuergerr (talk • contribs) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the wiki page "List of most lethal American battles" Normandy was the most lethal battle for America in terms of US soldiers killed. These facts should be reconciled and appropriate changes made 97.80.175.196 (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Vistula Oder Offensive
Among the results in the table, it is stated: Soviet offensive in Poland launched on 12 January 1945, eight days earlier than originally intended.[2]

However, the article on the Vistula Oder offensive itself states: The offensive was brought forward from 20 January to 12 January because meterological reports warned of a thaw later in the month, and the tanks needed hard ground for the offensive. It was not done to assist American and British forces during the Battle of the Bulge, as Stalin chose to claim at Yalta.[7]

Which is it?

Both have citations, one from 2002, the other from 2014.

Thom430 (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Was this a surprise or not?
Lead paragraph says, "The surprise attack caught the Allied forces completely off guard." Yet the fourth paragraph says it was predicted by Third Army Intelligence staff, and Ultra intercepts indicated an offensive was imminent. So which is it? Generally, attacks that are anticipated are not surprise attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.121.250.128 (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Intelligence saw the build up and the high command ignored it. 2.223.58.156 (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * British high command officer Strong, of the high command did see it and personally told Bradley who ignored it. The article states that. 2.126.206.57 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think also probable. Osizerok (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Germans attacked in the First Army sector. First Army was completely surprised; 12th Army Group was surprised. Third Army predicted the attack but they were not in the path of it. Because Koch (Patton's G-2) saw it coming, Patton was able to get Third Army staff working on counter-attack planning even before the SHAEF conference. This is one of the reasons Bastogne was relieved when it was. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bastogne was relieved because Patton's force met little resistance on the way to the town. Koch did not know where the offensive would be. It could have been right at the US 3rd Army. 2.126.206.57 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsense DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Of the three Allied leaders involved in the battle only one knew about Ultra and he wasn't allowed to tell the other two. As a result when he heard about the German build-up he knew it was reliable information, whereas the other two didn't, as their information had the source disguised. Because of this these two leaders discounted the information as unlikely to be true and so of little importance.


 * Although the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS tried to reduce their wireless traffic to a minimum before the offensive, there remained enough from other sources, e.g., the Luftwaffe, Deutsche Reichsbahn, etc., to provide clues that something fairly major was about to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.249 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Background section
There is a sentence in the Background section that I do not think is correct: "The Allies chose to defend the Ardennes with as few troops as possible due to the favorable terrain (a densely wooded highland with deep river valleys and a rather thin road network) and limited Allied operational objectives in the area." Specifically, the sentence states that the Ardennes has "favorable terrain." From everything that I've read about the Ardennes area in Belgium, the terrain is anything but favorable from a military standpoint. This is the main reason why the Allies did not think the Germans would attack in this region. I think the sentence should be changed. Starsmark (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Bastogne section - General McAuliffe's name misspelled - result if photo file is changed?
General McAuliffe's name was spelled as "McAullife" and I changed the spelling in the caption of the photo of the letter.

What would happen if I changed the spelling in the area that links to the photo? I think the photo of the letter would not show up.



Siege of Bastogne


Please help with this. Starsmark (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's right. If you change the title of the .jpg file, Wikipedia would look for a file with that name and not find it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought so. I don't know how to change the jpg name. Perhaps it does not really need to be changed. But if you know how to do this, would you please let me know how it's done? Thanks! Starsmark (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Allied supply issues
This section is long and mostly irrelevant as the supply issue had gone by 16 December 1944. Needs to be one short paragraph, no more. 90.198.216.240 (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)