Battle of the Bulge

Well, there was a good reason that area was chosen for R&R and regrouping broken units; only an idiot would have chosen to launch a major breakout there. 'Complete surprise' is only a good thing where there is something there you can exploit, and there was nothing to justify that in that area, as it was too far away from any achievable strategic goal. Mere momentary confusion and disruption at such a great cost with nothing permanent is merely insanity and waste, not 'genius'.
"Only an idiot"? About 20,000 Americans died because Ike was enjoying a series of Christmas parties and the Troops assumed that they would be home for Christmas. The FDR/Truman administration controlled the media at the time so the incredible negligence by the commanders and whatever passed as "intelligence" was ignored and the U.S. pretended that the Bastogne defenders symbolized a victory for the Allies rather than a tragic mistake.


Rubbish. A lot of 'intelligence' is ignored in any war, or peacetime intel as well, for the simple reason it doesn't sound credible, and despite all the ranting about FDR, he had nothing to do with HQ Europe ignoring the intel from the Ardennes; they didn't think Hitler was that incredibly stupid, is all, and hey, it turned out he was. The lame FDR bashing is just as silly as all the rest of the bashing here is.
 
Sure Germany was desperate and Hitler was insane but why was Ike attending a series of Christmas parties while Americans could actually hear the roar of freaking tanks as they relaxed in what they thought was a secure area? Somebody should have gone to jail but the media immediately took the offensive proclaiming the tragedy of the Ardennes offensive to be some sort of victory for the allies because some American general said "Nuts" to a German. Pop history is an amazing thing.
Maybe you should actually support some of your claims?
 
Well, there was a good reason that area was chosen for R&R and regrouping broken units; only an idiot would have chosen to launch a major breakout there. 'Complete surprise' is only a good thing where there is something there you can exploit, and there was nothing to justify that in that area, as it was too far away from any achievable strategic goal. Mere momentary confusion and disruption at such a great cost with nothing permanent is merely insanity and waste, not 'genius'.
"Only an idiot"? About 20,000 Americans died because Ike was enjoying a series of Christmas parties and the Troops assumed that they would be home for Christmas. .

20,000 Americans did die there.

But you have yet to prove that it was because of Ike having a series of Christmas parties or that
the troops assumed that they would be home for Christmas.

Were mistakes made? Sure. Plenty of other mistakes made by American high command- and British- and German.

But sure is easy to arm chair quarterback this all from the warmth and safety of our homes 70 years later.
 
Sure Germany was desperate and Hitler was insane but why was Ike attending a series of Christmas parties while Americans could actually hear the roar of freaking tanks as they relaxed in what they thought was a secure area? Somebody should have gone to jail but the media immediately took the offensive proclaiming the tragedy of the Ardennes offensive to be some sort of victory for the allies because some American general said "Nuts" to a German. Pop history is an amazing thing.
Bottom line is Hitler overplayed his hand and failed
His decision hastened the collapse of the Western Front
Ike was apparently instructed to stand down pending the arrival of the Russian allies and a lot of Americans died..

Prove it.
 
War is not humane. An army often sacrifices a part in order to draw an enemy into a trap or provoke a foolish move (see Austerlitz).
The U.S. losses in WWII compared to other major players was insignificant statistically (while understandably tragic to Americans). It was as if the world, through its insanity, laid victory at our feet.
 
Sure Germany was desperate and Hitler was insane but why was Ike attending a series of Christmas parties while Americans could actually hear the roar of freaking tanks as they relaxed in what they thought was a secure area? Somebody should have gone to jail but the media immediately took the offensive proclaiming the tragedy of the Ardennes offensive to be some sort of victory for the allies because some American general said "Nuts" to a German. Pop history is an amazing thing.
Bottom line is Hitler overplayed his hand and failed
His decision hastened the collapse of the Western Front
Hitler shouldn't have had a hand to play. FDR was dying and Ike was apparently instructed to stand down pending the arrival of the Russian allies and a lot of Americans died. Modern under-educated "historians" brush it off because they were taught to trust FDR no matter what.
FDR had nothing to do with the Battle of the Bulge
Ike had his objectives
 
War is not humane. An army often sacrifices a part in order to draw an enemy into a trap or provoke a foolish move (see Austerlitz).
The U.S. losses in WWII compared to other major players was insignificant statistically (while understandably tragic to Americans). It was as if the world, through its insanity, laid victory at our feet.

At the end of the war, we were the only ones left standing both economically and militarily
 
Sure Germany was desperate and Hitler was insane but why was Ike attending a series of Christmas parties while Americans could actually hear the roar of freaking tanks as they relaxed in what they thought was a secure area? Somebody should have gone to jail but the media immediately took the offensive proclaiming the tragedy of the Ardennes offensive to be some sort of victory for the allies because some American general said "Nuts" to a German. Pop history is an amazing thing.
Maybe you should actually support some of your claims?
Which ones do you think are untrue? Did Ike attend Christmas parties? Did the Troops think they would be home for Christmas and was the worst intelligence failure in freaking history downplayed or ignored?
 
Actually it seems that General McAuliffe may have said "F-you" when the Germans demanded surrender at Bastogne but the polite media at the time turned it into "nuts".
 
The Battle of the Bulge isn't a right or left argument, it's tragic history. I'm as critical of future republican president Eisenhower as I am of the FDR administration and the media at the time. Ike should have been relieved of duty but the FDR administration had absorbed the media to use as a propaganda tool and the main issue became the heroism of American Troops rather than the profound negligence that led to the deaths of almost 20,000 Americans abut six months before V.E. day.
 
Actually it seems that General McAuliffe may have said "F-you" when the Germans demanded surrender at Bastogne but the polite media at the time turned it into "nuts".
That is the story I heard
That it was cleaned up for public consumption
 
The Battle of the Bulge isn't a right or left argument, it's tragic history. I'm as critical of future republican president Eisenhower as I am of the FDR administration and the media at the time. Ike should have been relieved of duty but the FDR administration had absorbed the media to use as a propaganda tool and the main issue became the heroism of American Troops rather than the profound negligence that led to the deaths of almost 20,000 Americans abut six months before V.E. day.
Part of the fog of war
Weather and other factors obscured intelligence

Doesn’t constitute profound negligence
 
The Battle of the Bulge isn't a right or left argument, it's tragic history. I'm as critical of future republican president Eisenhower as I am of the FDR administration and the media at the time. Ike should have been relieved of duty but the FDR administration had absorbed the media to use as a propaganda tool and the main issue became the heroism of American Troops rather than the profound negligence that led to the deaths of almost 20,000 Americans abut six months before V.E. day.
Part of the fog of war
Weather and other factors obscured intelligence

Doesn’t constitute profound negligence
The weather wasn't a factor before the battle. It's possible that the Germans took the weather into account in their offensive and they were lucky that the overwhelming air superiority of Allied forces was cancelled. The media was desperate to spin a story of victory in spite of the incredible casualties but they were stuck with McAuliffe's response and they couldn't feed that to the American citizens so they simply changed the wording to make it nice and tidy for American consumption. The negligence of the Bulge became a story of victory and everyone was happy except the families of the 20,000 Americans who died in a month and the other 40,000 Americans who were wounded. The big picture was that FDR was dying, Ike was tired and COS Marshall was never up to commanding combat Troops and there was no viable intelligence network available in Europe outside of the Brits. The Ardennes Offensive was a accident waiting to happen and the Allies were literally caught with their pants down.
 
Last edited:
The Battle of the Bulge isn't a right or left argument, it's tragic history. I'm as critical of future republican president Eisenhower as I am of the FDR administration and the media at the time. Ike should have been relieved of duty but the FDR administration had absorbed the media to use as a propaganda tool and the main issue became the heroism of American Troops rather than the profound negligence that led to the deaths of almost 20,000 Americans abut six months before V.E. day.
Part of the fog of war
Weather and other factors obscured intelligence

Doesn’t constitute profound negligence
The weather wasn't a factor before the battle. It's possible that the Germans took the weather into account in their offensive and they were lucky that the overwhelming air superiority of Allied forces was cancelled. The media was desperate to spin a story of victory in spite of the incredible casualties but they were stuck with McAuliffe's response and they couldn't feed that to the American citizens so they simply changed the wording to make it nice and tidy for American consumption. The negligence of the Bulge became a story of victory and everyone was happy except the families of the 20,000 Americans who died in a month and the other 40,000 Americans who were wounded.
Monday morning quarterbacking
 
It is always a mistake to underestimate an enemy. Commanders, however, are also subject to overestimation. McClellan could have ended the Civil War two years earlier if he'd had just a little Napoleon in him.
No one, it must be said, on the Western Front would have expected more than annoyance strikes from the German lines, given how desperately they were engaged with the Red Army. A full scale offensive looked out of the range of possibility in addition to being absurd. What could such a campaign accomplish? Where would it be going? What would be the goal?
Perhaps there was over confidence at work, but it was far from strategic error.
 
It is always a mistake to underestimate an enemy. Commanders, however, are also subject to overestimation. McClellan could have ended the Civil War two years earlier if he'd had just a little Napoleon in him.
No one, it must be said, on the Western Front would have expected more than annoyance strikes from the German lines, given how desperately they were engaged with the Red Army. A full scale offensive looked out of the range of possibility in addition to being absurd. What could such a campaign accomplish? Where would it be going? What would be the goal?
Perhaps there was over confidence at work, but it was far from strategic error.
That's where "intelligence" comes in. Navy Intel was pretty much restricted to the Pacific. The only thing the U.S. had in the European theater was Donovan's amateurs and some isolated Army units who were probably of the opinion that they would be home for Christmas. FDR was dying and hard charger General George Patton was discredited by the media and Ike was exhausted. COS Marshall never commanded a combat unit and had no idea of strategy so the Ardennes Offensive became a reality.
 
It is always a mistake to underestimate an enemy. Commanders, however, are also subject to overestimation. McClellan could have ended the Civil War two years earlier if he'd had just a little Napoleon in him.
No one, it must be said, on the Western Front would have expected more than annoyance strikes from the German lines, given how desperately they were engaged with the Red Army. A full scale offensive looked out of the range of possibility in addition to being absurd. What could such a campaign accomplish? Where would it be going? What would be the goal?
Perhaps there was over confidence at work, but it was far from strategic error.
Agree

Common sense was Germany was not in a position to launch a major offensive. It would be a stupid thing for Germany to do. As it turned out, they were not strong enough. Once the weather cleared, they were quickly turned back. Overall, the German Christmas offensive hastened their loss of the western front
 
the Germans did a great job of keeping it as secret as possible:
general officers risked death for any leaks
straw used on roads to deaden vehicle sounds
night fighters flying over head at night to mask movement sounds
vehicles parked with camo/under trees/etc
...the Germans were very good--good with discipline/sound-light-etc discipline/camo discipline/etc
etc etc
 
the Germans did a great job of keeping it as secret as possible:
general officers risked death for any leaks
straw used on roads to deaden vehicle sounds
night fighters flying over head at night to mask movement sounds
vehicles parked with camo/under trees/etc
...the Germans were very good--good with discipline/sound-light-etc discipline/camo discipline/etc
etc etc
And poor at being human.
 

Forum List

Back
Top