Talk:Battle of the Bulge

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.