Talk:Battle of the Bulge

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Wikisource Links

These links need to be updated. They have apparently been moved. I would have done it my self but I don't know how. :( --Brian 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The BOB-NN links to Wikisource have been corrected to the new format. —Krellis 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadians

I know of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion and the Canadian Forestry Corps at the battle of the Ardennes, why is Canada not listed with Britain and the USA? Wouldn't seem fair... if you can recognize the British at Vimy Ridge with 1 brigade out of 11, you can recognize Canada at the battle of the Ardennes. We don't want to have a double standard at wikipedia do we?

guess the person who wrote this doesn't believe in Canadians

Oh lord....

Okay, you want to bring up Vimy Ridge? You do realize that during the time of that battle....Canada was still part of the British Empire right?

This is why so many of these articles are losing their FA status. People keep showing up and feeling the need to add tons of insignificant and uneeded details, cluttering up the article. To be quite frank....With all due respect to the Canadian fighting men, they had little if any impact at all in the battle. And their inclusion isn't necessary. Abalu 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Abalu

I'd hardly call adding a flag to the nationality box cluttering up the article.

Wokelly (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And it is inaccurate to say that Canada was still part of the British Empire at that time. That would be true of World War I, sort of. Certainly it was not true by WWII. America's Wang (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would, Canada was still part of the British Empire in the Second World War. (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Actually, Canada was not. Please check your facts next time. Thanks for playing, but you're out of your league. America's Wang (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh COME ON now.....Even it's own section in the article? Give me a break.

And as far as Canada being a part of the British Empire....I was talking about his reference to Vimy Ridge. At which point they still were very much part of the British Empire. So thanks for playing, but I do believe it is you who is "out of their league." 65.29.172.57 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Abalu

Casualties

==Source for the Wereth 11?==The assertion regarding the Wereth 11 needs a source. It sounds made up.AaronCBurke 18:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am "messing" with the US Army casualty figures. The figures I am providing are from an official US Army source, and are consistent with those reported in other official US Army sources including the Army's Official Report on Casualties in WWII.

Don't trust internet sources. They are often wrong.

Best Regards, Philippsbour

Do you think any historian would agree on that number?

1310 Hours 28 March, 2006

Professional military historians work from primary sources as much as possible. In the case of casualty figures, the primary sources are official sources. After all, who counted the dead, wounded, missing, and captured? The U.S. Army. Yes, there are no absolute, hard casualty figures for any battle, but the best we have are those recorded by the U.S. Army, and even they vary somewhat. But they vary only by a relatively small amount, not by tens of thousands, as you would suggest. So the answer to your question is that any professional military historian who has half a brain will have to accept these figures. How else can they arrive at a number? Magic?

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

How long has these numbers been around, since what, a week after the battle? And also you must not think so high about military historians because many would dismiss that number.

I've got 8,500 killed, 46,000 wounded and 21,000 missing/captured in the book sitting in my lap right now. GraemeLeggett 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1330 Hours, 28 March, 2006

One of the common problems, other than my own in adding the numbers incorrectly, is the tendency for the total casualties for both the Ardennes-Alsace campaigns to be added together. Sometimes this is compounded by using figures for the entire theater, rather than the individual campaigns themselves. Yet another is the confusion of double counting casualty figures for units that passed from one command to another. And yet another is the double counting of MIAs who were also POWs, who were also WIA or KIA. All of these things serve to complicate the task of getting to the "more correct" numbers.

I prefer to stick with the official figures for a variety of reasons, including the fact that this reflects the US Army's ability to tally its casualties very quickly using Morning Reports.

Doubling the number of the official numbers without some serious research on which to base them seems to be a poor way to write history.

I forgot to add that the "Medical Service in the ETO" history that I cited was published in 1992.

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

Is the german casulties "official figures"? I ave read 3 books today that says 81,000 casulties for the allies in the battle of the bulge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.112.74 (talk)

Please name the books and provide page numbers so that others may verify your research. Everything I see says the lower numbers are correct.--Habap 15:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The numbers in the battlebox are pulled from Parker's book listed in the bibliography. I can find the page if anyone is that curious, but basically pull any legitimate history of the battle and you get figures of oh 70-120 K on either side. Revisionst history certainly has a place, but not in a mainstream article. To contend that the casualty figures are roughly half of accepted figures would deserve its own article and also to be at all consistent would need to encompass standard casualty counting methods throughout the war. Tangerinebunny 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is BS. Official American U.S. Army sources points out about 81,000, and so has almost every legitimant historical source. Keep your historical revisionism out of articles. We present facts, not reviosinism at Wikipedia.

I have checked several books now and nothing comes close to your number that there were 30,000 US casulties, absolutley nothing. The lowest number i found was about 75,000. I find it very very hard to belive that it would be just 30,000 US casulties when everything ellse says that its not so. To present this at Wikipedia would lower their credablility.

In numerical terms, it is the largest land battle the U.S. Army has fought to date.... really??? larger than the Battle of Gettysburg? i dont think this is correct.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, but I was reading the Battle of the Bulge article on Encarta 2006 and this was written: “Managing to avoid being cut off by an Allied pincer movement, the Germans withdrew to their own lines in January, but heavy losses, including some 220,000 casualties, contributed to their final collapse in the following spring.” I'm just curious why their casualty number is so much higher than the one here.

That the Germans would have lost nearly 50% of their force seems far fetched...

I have posted a link to the official casualty figures to every war the US has been involved in other than the current series of wars. The link is to the US Army Center for Military History, and any figures taken from that source - whgich is on the Internet - are the Gospel figures. -- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 12:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Herbstnebel

An anonymous editor has added statements about the operation being called Herbstnebel. The most recent being: Some sources indicate that shortly before the fighting began the OKW named it "Herbstnebel" (Autumn Fog).. Now I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but we have found several sources saying that Herbstnebel was the name of one of the initial plans from the planning stage of this. Please make sure you've read Operation Herbstnebel, and then if you can tell us which sources it is that say this (and they are relatively reliable) then we can add the statement back. DJ Clayworth 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a confusion I encountered over at List of World War II military operations also. You are right in saying Herbstnebel was the name of a plan- Model's operational plan. It was later combined with most of Fall Martin and this combined plan became Wacht am Rhein. I have seem Herbstnebel described as a "name change" Wacht am Rhein underwent in Ian Kershaw Hitler Vol.2 but it is not an accurate statement to make. Article Operation Herbstnebel made a similar claim which I corrected in Operation Herbstnebel (Antwerp). I also asked that Herbstnebel and Martin operational plans be included in the article to avoid future confusion. Fluffy999 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why it's called Operation Herbstnebel (Antwerp). If you look at the Wikisource article, it seems clear that Herbstnebel was not aimed at Antwerp, and Model shared Rundstedt's belief that Hitler's big solution was unrealistic. Neither Herbstnebel nor Martin aimed to cross the Meuse, although they differed in other respects. -- Hongooi 01:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

More Montgormery

Does the stuff about the arguments between the generals really belong here? It's not about the Battle; wouldn't it be better on the pages of the generals concerned? DJ Clayworth 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, although it needs at least a mention. I wonder if there's scope to have an article - or several - about the differences between the Allied political and military leaders. Folks at 137 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is that the article used to read (paraphrase) "Montgomery was slow and incompetent and claimed victory for the battle, and said the americans under his command were worthless!". Given that this is a) wrong and b) apparently commonly believed it's worth putting the correct version in here. 203.158.62.202 14:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Difficult communications between commanders ostensibly on the same side could have an effect on a conflict - an example might be drawn from the Charge of the Light Brigade. If it affected morale and/or a subsequent battle and arose from this battle then it might be worthy of inclusion. GraemeLeggett 15:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

The casualty figures should be for the U.S. Army since British forces were only slightly involved. The actual casualty figures for the U.S. Army are much, much lower than were in the box. My source is: Cosmas and Cowdrey, Medical Service in the European Theater of Operations. Official U.S. Army History; Medical Dept.

—This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg (talk • contribs) .

Operation Nordwind

Edit 1430 Hours, 25 March 2006

The German offensive in the Ardennes was not the last major German offensive on the Western Front. That dubious honor belongs to Operation Nordwind. Operation Nordwind was not a subordinate operation of the German offensive in the Ardennes. I removed it from the list of subordinate operations. Nordwind was a completely independent operation.

For proof, please see the official US Army History of the Seventh US Army: Smith and Clarke, "Riviera To The Rhine." Dr. Clarke is the Chief Historian of the US Army.

Best Regards, —This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg (talk • contribs) .

Battle of the Ardennes

Edit: 1600 Hours, 25 March 2006

The official name assigned to the Battle of the Bulge by the U.S. Army is the Battle of the Ardennes. After the war it was coupled with the Battle of the Alsace, and official campaign credits are for the Battle of the Ardennes - Alsace, despite the fact they were separate and distinct battles fought over 100 km apart almost entirely by different American units.

Best Regards, —This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg (talk • contribs) .

Edit: 1735 Hours, 25 March 2006

The official U.S. Army dates for the campaign, Ardennes-Alsace is 16 December, 1944 - 25 January, 1945, not 28 January!

Best Regards, —This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg (talk • contribs) .

Red Ball Express

This article states: "The Red Ball Express stopped delivering supplies and started moving troops. Within a week, 250,000 troops had been sent." But Red Ball Express page says, that convoy action finished on 16 November 1944. Is there anyone to clarify that?

Technically, the term Red Ball Express only applies to a specific convoy operation shortly after D-Day, but many people (including veterans, even those who drove trucks on later routes and not on RBE) use the term to refer to ALL supply convoys in the ETO. Not sure if there should be clarification here or on the RBE page. --Habap 21:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The sentence should be changed anyway. Obviously they did not 'stop delivering supplies' ; if they had, what were those 250,000 soldiers going to eat and shoot? DMorpheus 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Ball Express Response

The RBE was one of only many express operations of the Communications Zone Services of Supply, US Army. Technically the supply operations of the ETO were conducted by the Services of Supply operated variously under the direction of the Communications Zone (ComZ) and the Southern Line of Communications (SOLOC).

US Army supply operations increased during the Battle of the Bulge, they did not decrease.

Best Regards, —This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg (talk • contribs) .

The "many express operations" you refer to were the result of the disruption of the European railroad system by the Strategic Bombing campaign. It was established out of despiration, and they were all identified by a graphic symbol in a specific color that was placed much as we place highway signs to this day. It was Patton who specifically played up the identity and progress of the "Red Ball Express", and he was the singular Consignee of the supplies - mostly POL products - that the trucks delivered. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Tanks are not casualties??

If so erase all tanks planes ships and material casualties from all battleboxes in wikipedia.(addind the original info)

2005 Hours, 11 April, 2006

Again, tanks, planes, ships, and material are not repeat not casualties. The term "casualties" refers to human beings. Please consult a dictionary.

Philippsbourg

This is incosistent, and ridicolous not to include the materiel lost into a battlebox even though their are not casualties.

VI Corps Materialize from Nowhere

By 15 January, VI Corps was fighting for its very life on three sides in the Alsace. Immediately prior to this sentence, and immediately following, the text returns to a description of "U.S. Seventh Army". VI Corps is not otherwise introduced in this major section. MaxEnt 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent Allied Casualties

Casualty estimates from the battle vary widely. The official US account lists 80,987 American casualties, while estimates range from 70,000 to 104,000.

In the pink overview sidebar it says 41,200 Allied casualties with a reference to a different source. MaxEnt 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke, right?

"the offensive also allowed the Allies to severely deplete the cream of the German army"

no its true.... it took the best tanks out too--24.225.156.40 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The original poster probably was confused about the term "cream", which in this case means the prime or best.63.131.9.22 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All mucked up

Our vandalism reverts and the ongoing argument about casualties have allowed errors to creep into the article. I just fixed the battle box stating that it took place in Devon. Could folks please review the entire article for similar errors. We also need to fix the casualty numbers per the discussion above. --Habap 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I've made some fairly substantial edits to the article tonight. Not trying to step on anyone's toes, but some SS hero worship has creeped in, as well as repetitive sentences and a fairly conversational tone. I've injected some economy in the wording - some concepts were spelled out in long run on sentences when really, a wikilink to an article will suffice to inform the reader. I also wonder if the Patton-Montgomery bunfight really needs three paragraphs here - it seems to me to be almost completely irrelevant to the battle, as interesting as it is to an examination of high command in the Second World War. Kudos to the original editors for giving this article a good start. What is needed now are significant numbers of citations for this article, to give it credibility.Michael Dorosh 04:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Response Speed

The Allies' slow response to the penetration set their own offensive timetable back by months.

Is it really true that their response time was slow? Danny S. Parker frequently said it was a "timely Allied reaction". The Wiki itself says, "before the first day was finished, Eisenhower...had ordered vast reinforcements to the area", this was quite contrary to Hitler's belief that it would take 2 or 3 days for an Allied response to commence (and somewhat contradictory to the top quote). Just because it was quicker than Hitler expected I'd want to call it a timely response.

I'll leave it to someone else to change it as I don't know much about this kind of stuff.

Schnozzinkobenstein 19:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Two claims in this statement seem almost ludicrously false . . .

First, by what possible standard could the Allied response be considered "slow?" While I don't have the exact figures to hand, consider that the allied forces on the western front were terribly understrength for the front they were covering, they were operating in horrible winter weather, and were overcommitted to winter offensives due to unrealistic estimates of their attacking power relative to their opposition. In spite of this, the 7th and 10th Armored divisions and the 82nd and 101st infantry divisions were in action or committed to the battlefield within forty-eight hours of the opening of the offensive. By the fourth day of the battle, the British 30th Corps was in a blocking position west of the Meuse, effectively negating any potential German strategy victory. Meanwhile, the two most powerful allied armies on the western front, the American 1st and 3rd, had been pulled out of frontline positions and were already containing and counterattacking the flanks of the German offensive. Could any other army in the history of warfare, even the elite German Panzer Armies of 1941-1943, have managed such a manuever under those conditions?

Second, was it not physically impossible for the offensive to have set the the allied offensive timetable back by "months?" The final allied assault into Germany began on February 8, 1945, well before the end of winter and only seven weeks after the beginning of the German counteroffensive. From that day to the German surrender on May 8, 1945, only three months passed. How much faster could the allies have possibly advanced against an army of the quality they faced and under such difficult conditions of weather and terrain?

The consensus among the authors of the many books and articles I've read on this topic over the last thirty years is that Watch on the Rhine shortened the war in Europe by many weeks, rather than lengthening it.

Spelling

Which spelling convention should be used in this article? At the moment it is a mixture of both, which looks odd to me. --Guinnog 00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As nobody has replied for a few days to this, does anybody mind if I standardise on Commonwealth English? Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English doesn't clarify which convention we use in an article like this, and it really isn't important to me either. British English is easier for me, although I suppose I could standardise(-ize) it the other way if that were the feeling here. I do think though that having both varieties in the same article looks funny. --Guinnog 15:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Went for Brit Eng as that was easier. Made a few other copyedits as well. See what you think. --Guinnog 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be American English, since there were more Americans fighting and many more American casualties? According to the article, the Americans had 80,987 casualties while the British had 1,400. --Awiseman 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, yes. Although the Germans had the most casualties of all. I think this is one of these cases where the spelling can simply be decided by a consensus of editors. I waited more than a week before doing my edits to see if there were any opinions about which standard of spelling the article should adopt. If there are strong feelings (ie a consensus) that US English should be used, I can copyedit it again I suppose. But what looked awful (to me at least) was having bits of both in the same article. The relevant policy is at [1]. --Guinnog 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

True, it should definitely be standardized, whatever it is. I'm not dead-set on American English, it just seems logical to me. --Awiseman 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

german divisions

Is it intentional that the only two German divisions mentionned in the article are SS (1st and 12th)? I probably have the material to add either all forces involved (probably just those relevant to the sections) or add a few more samples to remove the idea that all german troops were SS (or that the SS were some kind of elite).--Caranorn 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting the official report on Wikisource, which should provide correct information to flesh this article out.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WIKISOURCE MATERIAL on the Battle of The Bulge

I've started adding the original US Army report on this battle to Wikisource. The first six chapters plus the images therein have already been added, and more will be added in time. I've added a link in the Wikipedia article.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

December 15, 1944 Map

I replaced the two small scale maps of the Bulge area with one of much larger scale that pinpoints the local terraign. It is much easier to read, and comes from the official battle report. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 06:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer the two original ones, if you find them too small you could resize them to 400 or 600 pixel. And if you wish to retain the map you chose at least reduce it to a resolution that's equal or smaller to the actual map file, this looks really awfull.--Caranorn 15:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The primary problem with the original maps is the fact that they are both too small to read properly. They make cute pictures as is, but they are not good for following the story line of the article, and they don't have the level of detail found on the official map. -- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the one you linked into the article is easier to read (all three are in my opinion bad scans). Concerning the data, the two old maps seem to have about the same ammount of detail (more in some areas like elevations and forest cover). But this is largely an issue of resolution. Either set would be good if they were easily readable. Unfortunatelly none provide their exact source (which book, if in ETO as I assume, what volume...). But I guess now that the one you added is displayed at the correct scale it will do the job. Though I find the divisional/corps sector boundaries in useful and if only to show how stretched the US front line was before the offensive (the battleworn 28th and the green 106th with frontages similar to those of german armies).--Caranorn 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"...In numerical terms, the Battle of the Ardennes was the largest land battle in the history of the U.S. Army."

I think that this sentence fragment neds to be changed. If you check the battles that the US engaged in during World War I, you will find that they were larger than any of the battles of World War Two by virtue of the number of troops participating therein. -- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

International Casualty Listings

I think that there should be some consideration made to the French and Belgians who fought and died in the Battle of the Bulge. As long as the British are being honored for their contibutions then why shouldn't the French and Belgians be too?

I'm not aware of any French troops involved (their major formations fought in Alsace-Lorraine). For the Belgians, by all means, if you have verifiable numbers include them. As a note; several British divisions fought in the campaign, a large part of it was also under British command. So obviously they have to be listed.--Caranorn 12:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no French troops were involved in this battle. Moreover, I have never heard about casualties within the Belgian troops that could have played a (minor) role in this battle. There were however Belgian civilian casualties mainly due to German war crimes among others in Bande and the Stavelot area or because they were taken under the fire of one or other camp. One can also quote the 200 civilians that were killed during three air bombings made by the US Air Force on Malmedy the 23, 24 and 25 December 1944 while the city was in hand of the US troops. Finally, as it still happens today in many war zones after the conflict is over, many civilians were killed in the Ardennes after the end of the battle due to accidents with unexploded shells or grenades or mines that weren't removed.--Lebob-BE 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Even Ultra (...) revealed nothing about the up-coming buildup and offensive": contradiction with article on Ultra

There is a contradiction between what is stated in this article:

"Even Ultra (the allies reading of secret German radio messages) revealed nothing about the up-coming buildup and offensive."

and what is found in the article on Ultra:

"Likewise, Ultra traffic suggested an attack in the Ardennes in 1944, but the Battle of the Bulge was a surprise to the Allies because the information was disregarded."

Eric Le Bigot 08:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I made an update to that. The US Third Army also predicted German offensive action; 1st Army and 12th Army Group disagreed. DMorpheus 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction. Dupuy (listed in sources in article) says US 1st Army, 3rd Army, *and* SHAEF all warned 12th Army Group about possible German offensive action, but Bradley said, "Let me come!". Article updated. DMorpheus (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction?67.166.114.187 11:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)D 12/24/06

This article could really use a concise introductory paragraph. You know, something like "The Battle of the Bulge was a major battle in World War II in which the Allied Forces....etc."

Germany

The official name of the country during WWII was Deutschland (Germany), or Deutsches Reich (German Reich), or in speeches Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) or Drittes Reich (Third Reich). Germany was governed by the Nazi party; the Soviet Union was run by the Communist party, yet that country is not labeled in Wikipedia as the Communist Soviet Union.--Gamahler 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because by Soviet Union it is obvious that the communist governed state is meant. I will just correct the link for now, but I really see no reason to change Nazi Germany to Germany.--Caranorn 12:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi Germany" is tautology. The Nazi Party came to power in Germany legitimately (whatever our opinion of it may be), so it was the German government of the day. We don't usually refer to countries with the name of the party in power. I wouldn't refer to "Democratic USA" or "National Government UK" in battle boxes. I can understand a wish to distance modern Germany from the past, but the flag does that. Folks at 137 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union is called "soviet" because the soviets governed it. soviet means council and soviet union means union of councils. Their ideology was socialism and they did have communism to achieve socialism.

Nazi is by no means limited to Germany as half of Europe's nations had a swastika in their national flag during WWII time and did have a Nazi government(in some cases voluntary, in some cases by quislings). Wandalstouring 00:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

McAuliffe

"When General Anthony McAuliffe was awakened by a German invitation to surrender, he gave a reply of annoyance that has been variously reported and was probably unprintable."

Where did this come from? There are accounts by persons present in the headquarters that flatly contradict it. These accounts have McAuliffe awake and busy running the battle at the time the German surrender demand arrived, and saying "Aw, nuts!" when told of the demand. He was apparently inclined to ignore it as he had other things to worry about. A staff member suggested that a reply was necessary, and another staff member suggested that his original comment "Nuts!" was hard to beat. See, for example, Charles MacDonald's account of the battle, A Time for Trumpets.

If there is some basis for this alternate description of what happened, then a cite is needed.

I updated that section. DMorpheus 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that at least one of those rumors may have come from the "Band of Brothers" book. Abalu 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Abalu

"Allied victory"?

To have this summarised simply as "Allied victory" in the battlebox, I think is a gross oversimplification. In fact, most of the information in the "Aftermath" section point to it being one of the last major German victories:

• Allied casualties 70,000-105,000; German 60,000-100,000.
• "By the beginning of February 1945, the lines were roughly where they had been in December 1944." Meaning that the Allies effectively lost a month?
• A deterioration in relations between Montgomery and his US counterparts
• The US became so short of reinforcements in NW Europe, that African Americans were asked to volunteer for mainstream infantry companies for the first time. The only factor which offset this shortage was that the Germans had even fewer reserves
• Churchill requesting an offensive from the Soviets to take pressure off the western front

I think the summary would be more accurate if it read "Stalemate" .

Grant | Talk 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree for the following reasons.

• The Germans did not even remotely achieve their goals.
• The Germans were greatly weakened by the casualties taken during the offensive.
• The manpower problems of the US Army were not new, they only became apparent through the offensive. As a fact these manpower problems were one of the reasons for the early German success.
• Actually it can be said that there was no to little time lost as the German forces were proportionally weakened much more then the Allies and therefore the 1945 offensive had a better chance then it would have had with even part of the German force involved in the Ardennes left intact.

So it remains an allied victory, certainly a minor strategic victory, tactically it was close to a stalemate.--Caranorn 14:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should label it a "Minor Allied Strategic Victory" then? --Habap 14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The German goals were an optimum; the failure to achieve them does not equal an Allied victory. In empirical terms the Germans suffered less and gained more, and we are talking about the battle itself, not the overall strategic situation in Western Europe.

If I can offer two analogies: the Japanese failed to achieve their objectives in the Battle of the Coral Sea, but because the Allies suffered greater losses we say: "Tactical Japanese victory; Strategic Allied victory". Saddam Hussein failed to achieve his objectives in the Iran-Iraq War, but we describe the result as "Stalemate", not as an Iranian victory. Grant | Talk 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can’t agree with this. The German objectives were a must. Their only chance to have a gain from the offensive would have been to take Antwerp or, at least, to take the bridges over the Meuse river and to surround several allied divisions. They never managed to achieve this goal.

Moreover, the casualties figures are not the only element to take into consideration. The German have also lost a lot of material that was difficult to replace.

After the end of the offensive, they were no longer in position to take any initiative on the West front and had no other choice than carrying on a defensive battle till the end. --Lebob-BE 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree with this either. German losses at the battle were roughly on par with American losses, but the Germans were *far* less equipped to replace their losses. Furthermore, the campaign used up most of their remaining fuel, and airpower, and (as Stephen Ambrase posits) the in-detail destruction of the german army outside the seigfriend line probably made the final conquest of Germany far easier. Moreover, at the end of all those losses, they had lost all momentum, were demoralized, and completely on the retreat for good. Raul654 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the overall strategic situation is irrelevant to the outcome of the battle itself, as is 20/20 hindsight; let's stick to the battle itself. Grant | Talk 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

History - the study of events that have happened - is hindsight by its very definition. So yes, obviously we use hindsight when evaluating who the winners and losers were. In this case, we judge the result of the battle by who benefited more or less from it. The battle finished the Wermacht as a cohesive fighting force. I don't see how that can be called a victory in any circumstances. Raul654 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it "finished the Wermacht as a cohesive fighting force..." Except for the two-thirds of the Wehrmacht which was fighting the Soviets.

Anyway, the article is not called Overall strategic situation in Europe during January 1945, nor is it about that. The relevant question is: "was the battle seen as a victory by the Allies at the time?" I suggest it was not. They had no real idea of the effect on the Germans; their yardstick was 20,000 dead Americans. That is relevant to the summary in the battlebox. Grant | Talk 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a "Citation Needed" tag to the claim in the battlebox. A passage explaining why it was a clear Allied victory would also be great. Grant | Talk 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a cite. Here is an abridged version of the 2 cited pages:

"So what was the overall impact of the Battle of the Bulge? Since the Allied Offensive was stalling even before the German attack, the over-all length of hostilities was not extended... about 80,000 Germans and 70,000 Americans killed, wounded, and missing... each side lost about 700 tanks. This balance, however, obscures the fact that the Germans had used up their last reverse while the Allied forces, if no longer growing, could rpelace their losses... The dashing of [German] hopes attached to what was understood to be the last throw of the dice necessarily had a redoubled impact [on morale] both at home and at the front.

On the Allied side, there were three sets of reprocussions... [He goes on to describe (1) American recognition that the war would take lots more hard fighting, (2) the bad blood between the Americans and the Brits, and (3) The German offensive in the West allowed the Soviets to make a rapid advance in the East]

By he first days of January 1945, when it was obvious that both German offensives in the West had entirely failed to attain any strategic objective, other elements in the German hopes of reversing the tide of war had already been dashed." Raul654 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else but that does not say "clear Allied victory" to me, whatever the consequences three or four months later. Grant | Talk 10:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Weinberg explicitly notes that as a result of the battle, the Germans (1) didn't prolong the war, (2) didn't achieve a single strategic objective, (3) used up the last of their reserves, (4) took a huge morale blow, and (5) were so weakened on the Eastern front, that it allowed the Soviets to launch a massive offensive even before the battle was over (the Vistula-Oder Offensive). I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything but a defeat (and a pretty big one at that). Raul654 05:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I think the article need to be re-written somewhat to reflect this stuff, because it reads at the moment as though the battle did prolong the war. As I've alluded above, while the Vistula-Oder Offensive is highly significant historically, it is only related indirectly to the Ardennes campaign. Grant | Talk 08:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

... I'd like to add to this discussion: I don't think this can be called an 'Allied Victory' either. As far as I know, a victory takes a winner and a loser, like in a football-match. When it's Chelsea 1 - Arsenal 0 this is a victory for Chelsea. The Battle of the Bulge: Chelsea trying to score a goal against Arsenal, failing to do so, result 0 - 0. You can say 'its a victory for Arsenal because they were able to keep Chelsea from scoring', but this is false. It will take the next match (Invasion of Germany) to score the 1 - 0 that makes Arsenal the winner. I hope that with this example I have proved it cannot be called an Allied victory, because nothing was decided yet (even though Chelsea was demoralized etc. etc.). I think Stalemate is the appropriate judgement, with as someone said before Tactical victory to the Germans, but because they spent their last resources for a realistic counterattack in the West a Strategic defeat (for the Germans, meaning Allied Strategic Victory). It would be unfair to judge this as a German defeat looking at what they accomplished fighting vast Allied air formations. So I'll change to Stalemate for now, try to beat my example ;-).

Wiki1609 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:Your example is just plain wrong. A war (usually) consists of many battles. By your logic, "because nothing was decided yet", all of them but the last one is a stalemate. This is simply not the case. The Germans lost the battle for all of the reasons I have mentioned above, none of which you have responded to. Raul654 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a sticky mess. Here and elsewhere, there are debates over the words "victory", "defeat", "stalemate", "decisive", strategic", ad nauseaum. Do we mean the same thing with the same words? Is the outcome in terms of the battle, the theatre, the war? As a community, we need to get a consensus on these descriptions, IMO. FWIW, I'd regard this as a "German failure", as they failed to achieve their objectives, not as a defeat or victory, given the circumstances. Nothing is clearcut. Folks at 137 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

@ User:Raul654 First of all, my logic does not imply what you think at all, you simply dont want to admit my example is exactly what is going on here. When I claimed nothing was decided yet I was right, because this battle a) did not decide the Western Allies won the war in the West any more than they already had the advantage after landing in Normandy b) did not decide for the Germans they were defeated as the 'real' fight was in the East, their plan to roll the Western Allies back simply failed. I already responded to your arguments about spilt reserves etc., but that the Germans were demoralized and everything does not matter for the dry outcome of this battle (and as such, my example is right). German reserves were inevitably running out before the Battle of the Bulge. Fact is that the Germans scored many tactical victories, only their strategic objectives (which you must not forget were most likely best-case accomplishments, hardly attainable for the German army in their late 1944 state) were failed to attain. What they were able to achieve on the tactical level was still a hard job, just looking at numbers (only 2½ to 1 advantage in ground forces for the initial moments, with inferior air support) showing for some of the last times the German skill in fighting. But the Allies did not win anything from this failure, they actually lost territory and, for a while, the initiative. The outcome was simply a bled-out counteroffensive with a forceful retreat to more stable German defensive lines. Neither an Allied Victory or German defeat as in for example the Soviet Victory at Stalingrad.

And I agree, it does depend on your definition of 'victory', especially in complicated modern warfare with all its levels of operation.

And by the way, this situation can be compared with the German Schlieffen plan of WW1. Here German strategical objectives were failed to accomplish as well, but this is never counted as an Entente victory. The failure of this plan resulted in a stalemate for the next three years on the Western Front. And since this is classified as a stalemate, the Battle of the Bulge should be as well.

Wiki1609 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

One major difference though, the Schlieffen plan (not a battle by the way) led to fixed fronts (though iirc only after the Race to the Sea). The Ardennes Offensive on the other hand did not lead to any gains (Schlieffen 3 years occupation of most of Belgium, and large parts of France, Ardennes back to the starting positions after roughly two months). The Allies were also able to launch their own offensive in the spring of 1945 so there definitely was no stalemate at this point.--Caranorn 11:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Schlieffen plan had a similar outcome, it does not matter for the designation if the stalemate lasted for 3 years or 3 days. After the Schlieffen plan failed numerous offensives were launched but the stalemate remained, so just having an offensive doesnt mean theres no stalemate. You cant say 60 years later that because the Battle of the Bulge was followed by a succesful Allied offensive that the whole Battle of the Bulge was an Allied victory, for that no longer was the Battle of the Bulge. Wiki1609 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Wiki1609. That has been my point all along. What happened even one day later or 100 miles away is not relevant to this battle. Grant | Talk 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a German offensive, and it failed because its goal was to get Antwerp. So obviously the Germans didn't win, but it cost the allies a month of time, men, and supplies, which infers that the Germans suceeded in a secondary goal, to slow the allied advance. I'm not saying it should be stalemate because it can be argued both ways, but I think that a good page would be to be about the arguements over who won, or is there a page in existance? --LtWinters 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless a reference which says that battle was an Allied victory is provided soon, I'm changing the outcome to "Stalemate", because the losses were approximately equal, the general strategic situation and subsequent events are not relevant to this battle, and "Stalemate" is how it has always appeared to me, in everything I've read about the battle over many years. Grant | Talk 19:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is incomprehesible to me how you can say the subsequent events or general strategic situation are not relevant. What else could possibly be relevant? Battles are fought to affect the general strategic situation; the subsequent events are what counts.

Here are a few sources:

Russell Weigley, "Eisenhower's Lieutenants", p.566, ..."Patton certainly recognized the incompleteness of the victory in the Ardennes."

Greiss et al, The West Point Military History Series, "The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranian", p. 369: "In the end, however, it would be Hitler's last gasp in the west and would set the stage for a rapid Allied closure to and jumping of the Rhine." p. 388: "The results were sobering to the Allies, but disastrous to Hitlerite Germany." "...Hitler had gambled on reaching Antwerp, and had lost. Although his last-gasp effort set back Allied operations some six weeks, the Germans paid a heavy price in men and equipment......

Keegan (ed) "Atlas of the Second World War", p. 160: "...a daring but costly failure".

DMorpheus 00:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is "incomprehensible" to me that some editors think this article is about the overall strategic situation in Europe during early 1945, as though there is not enough to discuss in the Battle of the Bulge itself!

Anyway, those are great references and are what I've been requesting. I accept that it was an Allied victory, albeit not a "decisive" one. Grant | Talk 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Details

Added Fall Martin and Operation Herbstenebel. For some reason these operational plans dont appear in the sections dealing with German planning. Did they get removed since being a featured article? This statement: "Several plans for major Western offensives were put forward, but the German High Command quickly concentrated on two" appears to allude to the planning conducted by Jodl.

1. Operation Holland: a single-thrust attack to be launched from the Venlo area, with Antwerp as the objective.
2. Operation Liège-Aachen: a two-pronged attack with the main effort driving from northern Luxembourg in a northwesterly direction, subsequently turning due north to meet the secondary attack which would be launched from the sector northwest of Aachen.
3. Operation Luxembourg: a two-pronged attack launched simultaneously from central Luxembourg and Metz to seize Longwy
4. Operation Lorraine: also a double envelopment, to be launched from Metz and Baccarat and to converge on Nancy.
5. Operation Alsace: an envelopment to be executed in two thrusts, one originating east of Epinal and the other east of Montbéliard, the juncture to be made in the Vesoul area.

Hitler asked for a combination of Operation Holland and Operation Liège-Aachen on 9 October. This was delivered as a full plan by Jodl on 19 October. On 22 October Model and Rundstedt got involved. Article doesnt mention this but continues with mention of "the plan". Can someone include mention of operational plans Herbstnebel & Martin outside of the footnote where I put them (I didnt want to begin an edit war)? Ideally they belong in a main article titled "Wacht am Rhein" which details German planning and operations. Fluffy999 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

I think there should be some figures about reinforcements. Currently, as of the chart, there were 83,000 men but over 89,000 casualties. I thought that even James Bond said that you couldn't die twice.

Who ever scripted this page must have been joking. Right before the top paragraph it says poopy poopy poopy. Now I'd be more than happy to fix it if I could FTP wikipedia. But I cant because my username and password are useless for FTP purposes on this site. So either someone else fix it or you will get more complaints like this one. Its a simple error to fix, just delete it and re-FTP it. This kind of thing gives wikipedia a bad rep within schools.

-Harrison 4-5-07

This must be an immature joke!

Before the first paragraph at the top it says poopy poopy poopy, someone take it out for the sake of humanity!!! Slack565 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Harrison 4-5-07

Already did.--LWF 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Herbstnebel/Martin

Okay, got the chance to look at the sources. There seems to be some confusion about these two names and Model's and Rundstedt's hand in them.

• Model was united with Rundstedt in opposing Hitler's idea of aiming for Antwerp. He developed an alternative plan of his own, Herbstnebel, which did not aim to cross the Meuse. After consultation with Rundstedt, the two of them combined their plans to present a united front to Hitler (Model had wanted one breakthrough; Rundstedt wanted two). Of course, Hitler didn't listen.

• Neither Case Martin nor Herbstnebel had anything to do with Hitler and OKW's plan for Wacht am Rhein.

• Nevertheless, Model chose "Herbstnebel" as the new cover name for Wacht am Rhein, in either late Nov or early Dec 1944. This was essentially just a name change, nothing more. Model and Rundstedt had no significant input to the plan, which was entirely the creation of Hitler and OKW.

Sources: The Battle of the Bulge: The German View, ed Danny Parker, 1999, pp.95-100; Panzers in Winter: Hitler's Army and the Battle of the Bulge, Samuel Mitcham, 2006, p.38; Hitler's Commander, Steven Newton, 2006, pp.329-334. -- Hongooi 11:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Experience of the 99th

Under "Planning" it reads:

"The U.S. units deployed in the Ardennes thus were a mixture of inexperienced troops (such as the rookie U.S. 99th and 106th Divisions), and battle-hardened troops sent to that sector to recuperate (the 2nd Infantry Division)."

Several paragraphs later:

"The attacks by the Sixth SS Panzer Army's infantry units in the north fared badly due to unexpectedly fierce resistance by the experienced U.S. 2nd and 99th Infantry Divisions at the Elsenborn Ridge,"

was the 99th now a rookie division or an experienced one (I don't know, so I can't correct one of the statements myself

Thanks --Albert Cuandero 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The 99th was a rookie division, but by all accounts fought surprisingly well. Edited to remove the inconsistency. -- Hongooi 13:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

one side view

"...the attack still achieved surprise. The degree of surprise achieved was compounded by the Allies' overconfidence..." It should be mentioned that though the Allies did underrate the strength of the German Army, the Ardennes offensive was a pretty reckless move on the German side - some sources have suggested that many of Hitler's closest generals disputed over it, insisting that Hitler put more forces on the Eastern front. The degree of surprised achieved was not only because of the Allies' overconfidence, but more of its recklessness. Comments? Aran|heru|nar 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Allied army strength

How could the americans have 89,987 casualties if the allied forces where about 83.000 ?

81.232.67.249 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) bk

Must be the US strength at the start of the battle. Unfortunatelly I don't think I have a good source to look into this. Maybe someone else can improve the infobox.--Caranorn 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Belgian civilians killed

In fact this picture shows indeed Belgian civilian killed but the explanation below is wrong. This picture has been taken Malmedy after one of the three mistaken bombing of the USAF. On 23, 24 and 25 december was bombed by the USAF while the US troops were holding the town. At least 200 Blegian civilians were killed and a still unknown number of US soldiers. I intend to change the text below the picture soon. --Lebob-BE 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Shaw was a German Commander ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.63.2 (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wacht am Rein

About Wacht am Rein: is the translation correct? "Wacht" can also be translated as "(to) guard". (To) Guard the Rhine? --Soetermans (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The defensive-sounding name was part of the deception plan. DMorpheus (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's "Die_Wacht_am_Rhein" and it's a patriotic song directed against France. -- 790 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir Brandenberg/Brandenberger

"Sir Brandenberg's Seventh Army pushed towards Luxembourg in their efforts to secure the flank from Allied attacks"

Should this not be Brandenberger? America's Wang (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

American Casualties

How come they don't add up? It should be 84,323. The German numbers add up correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle named after a sawmill? Who says?

The very first paragraph of this article says "but it is known to the general public simply as the Battle of the Bulge, named after the local sawmill."

What the -- ?

Every other source I've ever seen (and even the rest of this article) states that the "bulge" is the bulge backward in the Allied line, i.e., the German salient. I suppose it's remotely possible that Bulge was originally a local place name that was misunderstood by newsmen early on to refer to the salient for which it was such a natural fit . . . but is there any reason to believe this? There's no citation here, and I'm wondering if it isn't actually a joke that should be excised.

66.241.73.241 (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It was acually a joke that I have removed. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Commander

I can't remember the guys name, but there was an airborne general who was asked to surrender and he replied "nuts!" Shouldn't he be under commanders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

McAuliffe. What is the theory here? No local commanders? There are some interesting people on both sides. Not all battles have to be fought by generals only, do they? I guess I would like to read guiding principles on listing battle commanders. Student7 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not up to Featured Article Status

Having looked through this article multiple times, I wouldn't even place it at GA status. Entire sections are without footnotes, and there is a popular culture section without any references or citations. It also needs a very good copyedit. I will have some spare time to work through it in a few weeks, but I'd definitely like to get this downgraded if possible. Skinny87 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Popular culture section as it has no relevance to the actual Battle of the Bulge. This article should stay on topic and relevant to the text. It should also remain verifiable with appropriate sources; something that section was distinctly lacking in. Comments welcome. Woody (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got the books listed in the refs or can we just wipe them or move them to a "Further reading" section. We really need to start on the citing campaign for the article, though I don't have any books on the subject. Woody (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some of those listed and some others, and I will theoritically have access to them starting on 14 July (when I return to San Diego), but I don't know how much time I will have to add citations to this article. I guess that we'll see. JonCatalán (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I reassessed it to B; hopefully we can get this back to FA ASAP.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unworthy sentence

I find the following sentence in the 'drafting the offensive' section. "There is no evidence that Hitler realized, or any of his military staff pointed out, that of all the major combatants, the United States was the least damaged and had the greatest restorative powers.". This seems to be trying to imply that this fact was significant and Hitler should have realised it. In fact it is perfectly possible that Hitler assumed a) US armies would not fight as effectivly as British ones and b) it would be casualties and morale effects that caused the US to pull out of the war, even if they were relatively undamaged. I would recommend removing the sentence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's possible to argue this reflects Hitler's abysmal (even delusional) grasp of the problems being faced. Absent evidence one way or the other, take it out, but I'd rather see evidence of Hitler's reasoning than just remove it. This might also help explain why he thought he could get a separate peace.

Given it stays in, is adding "furthest from Germany's reach" (excepting Canada & Oz) valid? Strategic bombing was beyond Luftwaffe, but V-1s/V-2s had already started flying, as much a domestic political tool to shore up the Nazis (showing Germans "we're giving 'em back") as to terrorize Britons (which surely was true). U.S. (& Canada) were out of reach of that, too. Am I way OT? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, "McAuliffe responded, 'Nuts!'" FWI read (Y'blood on the Bulge, IIRC), McAuliffe was frustrated with his inability to extract the 101st, & didn't really know what to do, & it was that he responded "Nuts!" to. (IIRC, "Nuts! I don't know what to say!") Also, I deleted the needless junk. I'd add his slang was roughly equiv to the German "lick my ass", if I could be surer of it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Against the grain

"open ground beyond the Meuse offered the prospect of a successful dash to the coast" I don't have sources for it, but I've seen a TV doc that suggests the inadequate road network N-S (as v E-W) was a factor, as much as "open ground". True? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Casualties, lets try again...

The references supplied for casualties were a self published source helium.com and the otherwise excellent The Ardennes:Battle of the Bulge] which doesn't give casualty figures like those in the infobox. I have removed them.

Numbers I can get are:

• Cirillo, Roger. "Ardennes-Alsace". Office of the Chief of Military History Department of the Army. Retrieved 2008-12-06. Page 53

“ Some thirty-two U.S. divisions fought in the Ardennes, where the daily battle strength of U.S. Army forces averaged twenty-six divisions and 610,000 men. Alsace added eleven more divisions to the honors list, with an average battle strength of 230,000. Additionally, separate divisional elements as well as divisions arriving in sector at the end of the campaign granted participation credit to three more divisions. But the cost of victory was staggering. The final tally for the Ardennes alone totaled 41,315 casualties in December to bring the offensive to a halt and an additional 39,672 casualties in January to retake lost ground. The SHAEF casualty estimate presented to Eisenhower in February 1945 listed casualties for the First Army at 39,957; for the Third Army at 35,525; and for the British 30 Corps, which helped at the end at 1,408. Defeating Hitler's final offensive in the Alsace was also costly; the Seventh Army recorded its January battle losses at 11,609. Sickness and cold weather also ravaged the fighting lines, with the First, Third, and Seventh Armies having cold injury hospital admissions of more than 17,000 during the entire campaign. 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. ”

• MacDonald, Charles B. (1998). The Battle of the Bulge. Phoenix. ISBN 9781857991284. Page 618

“ Among 600,000 Americans eventually involved in the fighting... 29 divisions, 6 mechanized cavalry groups, and the equivalent of 3 separate regiments - casualties totalled 81,000 of which 15,000 were captured and 19,000 killed. Among 55,000 British - 2 divisions and 3 brigades casualties totalled 1,400, of which just over 200 were killed. The Germans, employing close to 500,000 men - including 28 divisions and 3 brigades - lost at least 100,000 killed, wounded and captured.

Both sides lost heavily in weapons and equipment, probably as many as 800 tanks on each side and the Germans a thousand planes

”

The second reference suggests more tanks were lost per side than is currently given by our article as having been present. Does anyone else have useful references for this? Hohum (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Page 674, The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge

“ In late December German propagandists claimed that the object of the Ardennes offensive had been to cripple the attack capabilities of the Allied armies and chew up their divisions east of the Meuse. There also is considerable evidence that Model, and perhaps Rundstedt, accepted this as a reasonable tactical objective in the operations from Christmas onward. The attainment of this goal, to chew up Allied divisions and dull the cutting edge of the American armies, was achieved in only limited fashion. The attack of twenty-nine German divisions and brigades destroyed one American infantry division as a unit, badly crippled two infantry divisions, and cut one armored combat command to pieces. The total of American battle casualties reported for the period 16 December through 2 January (although these probably were incomplete returns) numbered 41,315 officers and men, of which 4,138 were known to be killed in action, 20,231 were wounded in action, and 16,946 were reported missing. During the same period the American formations in the Ardennes received 31,505 replacements, or "reinforcements" as these individual soldiers now were named. The matériel losses inflicted by German action represented only a temporary diminution in the fighting strength of a few of the American divisions and normally were replaced within a fortnight. ”

The sources for American casualties comes directly from the United States Army records in 1944/1945. Although the book cites that the numbers are most likely incomplete and therefore not accurate, the numbers indeed may have been higher for the American forces that participated in the campaign.

Additionally, note that the term casualty does not mean killed-in-action or non-combatant deaths. The dates for these casualties are from 16 December 1944 to 2 January 1945, not to 25 January 1945 as listed for the battle on the information box in Wikipedia. -Signaleer (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the help! I was looking for final figures, primarily for the infobox, but numbers to 2nd January might find a place in a relevant part of the main article. Hohum (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert G. Snyder my dad fought at the battle of the Bulge. Today I received the blanket he had while he was at the Battle of the Bulge. A relative had it. Dad was wounded in France and received a Purple Heart. He was a DAV, he passed away Oct 18th 2004. He had won a second purple heart but never received it. He three brothers that fought in WWII, Lawrence Snyder, John Snyder and William Snyder. Dad was a Sgt E-5. He really never talked about WWII. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.144.135 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties for Seventh Army

There seems to be an inconsistency in the "Germans strike back" section. The article indicates that Seventh Army's VI Corps suffered a total of 14,716 casualties in Unternehmen Nordwind in January 1945, yet only 11,609 casualties are claimed for all of Seventh Army for January. Do the two figures reflect different time periods, or is there an actual mistake there? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates inconsistent

Toward the end of this article, it claims that "the German offensive drew to a close on 25 January." The very next section, it says, "On 7 January 1945, Hitler agreed to withdraw... thus ending all offensive operations."

That's a two and a half week disagreement in a battle that only took place for 3 weeks!

I'm new to Wikipedia... but can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.145.67 (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

America's bloodiest battle?

The article currently states in the lead that the Bulge was America's largest and bloodiest battle in history (although the reference cited only claims that it was America's bloodiest of World War II). I have always been under the impression, and have read it in many places, that the Meuse-Argonne of World War I was actually America's bloodiest. Official casualty figures from that battle were 26,277 KIA and 95,786 wounded, or a total of 122063 without counting captured (who I don't suppose count as being "bloodied" anyway). Accordingly, I'm going to delete the reference to "bloodiest" battle. If anyone objects, please feel free to respond. Jrt989 (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also have a look at Battle of Iwo Jima.--BSTemple (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording needs to reflect the source, to make it the "largest and bloodiest battle in WWII". Saying that it's the second largest ever confuses matters by requiring multiple sources and comparing the two. BSTemple; Iwo Jima had far less US fatalities and/or casualties than the Ardennes/Battle of the Bulge. Hohum (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I was just putting into perspective the "bloodiest battle" and not casualty figures. Also look at Battle of Okinawa, 12,000 killed. These were very much, bloody battles, but of course not in terms of figures.--BSTemple (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we have it read "largest and bloodiest American battle of World War II," then? I think that would be a good idea, especially since I think calling the Battle of the Bulge the largest battle is also potentially misleading, since by some counts 1.2 million American soldiers took part in the Meuse-Argonne. Jrt989 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Hohum (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've made this change. Jrt989 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

stub tag

Is there any reason why this article is tagged as a stub? Jrt989 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

None that are apparent. Removed. Hohum (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Germany

The Battle of the Bulge was fought in Belgium and Luxembourg and German land was not involved so I removed Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.151.118 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Portions of the involved front near Düren and near Losheim were within Germany, so I'm going to undo. Hohum (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

More details

Why there is no details about the American counter offensive during Battle of the Bulge ? ..... I mean the details only about the German offensive and since the article is about Battle of the Bulge not just Operation Wacht um Rhein .... I think the article needs improvment.

--82.116.151.118 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian flag

I noticed that there is a Canadian flag in the beligenrents box on the side of the article. And why is this? NO CANADIAN TROOPS FOUGHT IN THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE. NONE WHATSOEVER.

But since Canada likes to take credit for "winning" every battle in World War II, perhaps we should just remove the American flags and replace them with Canadian maple leaves and let them arrogantly take credit for Bulge altogether! What a f--king joke. --74.47.102.193 (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy at high command" edits.

I recently reverted an IP editor who had reinserted his original edits after their previous entry was reverted due to being uncited. While the reinserted text did have some sources, they were a mix of incomplete and dubious quality. Hopefully he will put his case here as we may still be able to improve the article with his input. Hohum (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of the Bulge - a British view

The battle of the Bulge is one of the most remarkable battles of WW2, unfortunately the reasons have been censored for over 60 years.

Montgomery did rescue the US Army, which without his input would have been comprehensively defeated. It was not politically or cultural acceptable to mention that at the time, though after 60 or so years I would hope we would be able to look at the facts with some detachment.

The German attack cut all communications between Bradley (who was in Luxembourg) and his northern Armies. They were leaderless and disorganised, under normal circumstances they would have been defeated. Montgomery (like Patton) anticipated the German attack and made plans to improvise a command structure in advance for the US Army which he knew would suffer a crippling blow. He also and moved reserves to the Meuse to protect the Meuse crossing which were the main German objective.

Although literally 'erased' from US maps, Montogomery used the British XXX Corps (with its Canadian troops) to plug the hole in the US line, they then drove forward to Houfalazie and Bastonge relieving them from the West.

A British account of the situation contemporary with events can be found in Alanbrooke's (Commander in Chief of the British Army) war diaries and in the British HMSO official histories. They both differ significantly from US histories and personal memoirs, which although not necessarially inaccurate omit many significant details with the aim of minimising British involvement.

The actual US units which were taken under British command in the heat of battle actually had a response at direct variance to the US histories - if you care to check out the documentary series 'The World at War' episode 19 you will find an interview with General Lawton Collins being quite frank about the fact that the British 'saved our ass' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is: TV programs are debatable sources at best, and General Lawton Collins is a primary source, as are war diaries and official histories. Find some decent secondary sources. See WP:V. Hohum (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh? You prefer secondary sources to primary???? Why would you prefer a secondary source to a primary?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)