Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Bulge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.150.10.249 (talk) at 15:28, 2 December 2017 (→‎Was this a surprise or not?: More). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleBattle of the Bulge is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 1, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
October 13, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 16, 2004, December 16, 2007, December 16, 2011, and December 16, 2014.
Current status: Former featured article

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)[reply]

Intelligence saw the build up and the high command ignored it. 2.223.58.156 (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nonsense DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 build-up he knew it was reliable information, whereas the other two didn't, as their information had the source disguised. Because of this they discounted the information as unlikely to be true and so of little importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.249 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Bulge&oldid=813229141"