Talk:Battle of the Bulge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Battle 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 1, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 21, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
October 13, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 16, 2004, and December 16, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Pritzker Military Library WikiProject (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Luxembourg (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Battle of the Bulge is within the scope of WikiProject Luxembourg, a collaboration intended to improve the coverage of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the English language Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Belgium (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of History.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Was this a surprise or not?[edit]

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)

Later parts of the battle[edit]

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)

American or British English?[edit]

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)

"It was the largest and bloodiest battle fought by the United States in World War II..."[edit]

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)

Recommended article split[edit]

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)

Missing/Bad references[edit]

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)