Battle of the Bulge

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2003-03-12 09:54pm

Im doing a project on the Battle of the Bulge for my US History class. Anyone know any good links?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-12 09:57pm

Will this do?

http://www.bulgereport.com/
Sorry, but I had to do that.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-03-12 09:58pm

Frank! Naughty person.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-12 10:03pm

Hehe...
Here, Jadeite, this should steer you in the right direction.
http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~dsargent/

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-12 10:05pm

You're in the US right?

Use Stephen Ambrose. A lot. They'll love you for it. Anywhere else in the world you'll be laughed out of academia for using him as a serious reference, but...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-12 10:11pm

Anders, must you always go on a rant against Ambrose? Most of my teachers would not have "loved me" because his name appeared on my Works Cited list; furthermore, his little plagerism incident has further tarnished his name.

(That said, I have been meaning to read his biography on Eisenhower, though haven't gotten around to it).

As for sources, head to your library and find some information, don't be lazy and just look on the Internet.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-12 10:19pm

phongn wrote:Anders, must you always go on a rant against Ambrose? Most of my teachers would not have "loved me" because his name appeared on my Works Cited list; furthermore, his little plagerism incident has further tarnished his name.

(That said, I have been meaning to read his biography on Eisenhower, though haven't gotten around to it).

As for sources, head to your library and find some information, don't be lazy and just look on the Internet.

Ambrose is great as a reference as long as you a) don't solely reference him, and b) don't take his word as the gospel truth. Just like any other reference. However he has something of a bad rep (even without the plagiarism) for being remarkably US-centric, this wouldn't be such a bad thing except quite often this bias in the writing isn't acknowledged by him, or the people who cite his works.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-03-12 10:48pm

David Eisenhower (Ike's kid) wrote a solid book about the Ardennes Offensive entitled "The Bitter Woods".

It's a thick book and would be a long read, but it gives you great soldier's accounts, and blow by blow narrative of the battle.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-12 10:50pm

weemadando wrote:Ambrose is great as a reference as long as you a) don't solely reference him, and b) don't take his word as the gospel truth. Just like any other reference. However he has something of a bad rep (even without the plagiarism) for being remarkably US-centric, this wouldn't be such a bad thing except quite often this bias in the writing isn't acknowledged by him, or the people who cite his works.

Oh, well that makes more sense. Though the US-centricism was blatantly intentional (considering his "personal" style of writing the war) and should be rather obvious.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-12 10:56pm

phongn wrote:
Oh, well that makes more sense. Though the US-centricism was blatantly intentional (considering his "personal" style of writing the war) and should be rather obvious.

Hell, in most of my WW2 essays I'll cite Ambrose, but then I'll have a counterpoint from another historian who has a different point of view. Hell, I remember one essay from high school where I was counter-pointing Ambrose with German Propaganda from during the war. My teacher loved that. That is a bit of an extreme example of counter-pointing though.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-12 11:09pm

weemadando wrote:
phongn wrote:
Oh, well that makes more sense. Though the US-centricism was blatantly intentional (considering his "personal" style of writing the war) and should be rather obvious.
Hell, in most of my WW2 essays I'll cite Ambrose, but then I'll have a counterpoint from another historian who has a different point of view. Hell, I remember one essay from high school where I was counter-pointing Ambrose with German Propaganda from during the war. My teacher loved that. That is a bit of an extreme example of counter-pointing though.

A bit extreme; Ambrose may have had a pro-US viewpoint but I hardly considered it propaganda!

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-12 11:17pm

From what I've read of the Battle, the American counter-attack was badly thought out.

The Americans basically launch a frontal assault on the Germans, when they really should have launch a pincer movement, trapping the Germans in a pocket, rather than letting the Germans escape.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-12 11:19pm

Ambrose writes to a pretty pro-U.S. audience, bias is to be expected.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-12 11:19pm

Use Liddell Hart.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-12 11:24pm

Going along with this topic, I've gotta write a paper on Operation Barbarrossa, more specifically the timing of it.

By that I mean, did the dely caused by the Greece and Crete campaign have a direct effect on the outcome, i.e. German failure/victory.

Also, wether if the Germans invaded a year earlier or a year later, or even waited for the Russians to invade Europe, and counter attacking.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-12 11:27pm

phongn wrote:
weemadando wrote:
phongn wrote:
Oh, well that makes more sense. Though the US-centricism was blatantly intentional (considering his "personal" style of writing the war) and should be rather obvious.
Hell, in most of my WW2 essays I'll cite Ambrose, but then I'll have a counterpoint from another historian who has a different point of view. Hell, I remember one essay from high school where I was counter-pointing Ambrose with German Propaganda from during the war. My teacher loved that. That is a bit of an extreme example of counter-pointing though.
A bit extreme; Ambrose may have had a pro-US viewpoint but I hardly considered it propaganda!

That essay was about the campaign across France post D-day, and how in that case, like every time a nation is getting pushed back "They fight valiantly and are defeating the hordes of the uncouth evil..." I used Ambrose of an example of how each nation liked to "exaggerate" their role in the conflict for their own national interest. And also because he is the epitome of the cliched Cold War era historian.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-03-13 07:45am

Ted wrote:From what I've read of the Battle, the American counter-attack was badly thought out.

The Americans basically launch a frontal assault on the Germans, when they really should have launch a pincer movement, trapping the Germans in a pocket, rather than letting the Germans escape.

The Americans didn't have alot of time to really prepare a pincer counterattack. They needed to attack as quickly as they could in order to relieve the 101st at Bastonge. The 101st was hanging on by its fingernails, and the Americans simply couldn't afford to have them give in.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-13 11:51am

Ted wrote:From what I've read of the Battle, the American counter-attack was badly thought out.

The Americans basically launch a frontal assault on the Germans, when they really should have launch a pincer movement, trapping the Germans in a pocket, rather than letting the Germans escape.

A big part of the counter attack was a pincer movement. Overall it didn't really matter though. While many German troops did escape, they had to abandon a Panzer army's worth of heavy equipment, with the other armies worth destroyed.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-13 07:29pm

Durran Korr wrote:Ambrose writes to a pretty pro-U.S. audience, bias is to be expected.

Yes, but I'd appreciate it if that bias was acknowledged, because unfortunately, quite often it is not.

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » 2003-03-14 02:25am

Search for the book called "The Last Assault", written by Charles Whiting.

Probably your teacher won't like it but at least it tells the truth about how "Ike" sacrificed a couple of divisions just to "force" the germans to attack.

Very interesting that most of the official documentation about the "Battle of the Bulge" is still under "Top Secret" stamps or heavily censored. Almost 60 years have passed, what's the secret?

Read the book and everything will be revealed.

Interviews with soldiers from the 106th and the 28th infantry division and the 14th cavalry division. They fought in the first line on 16.12.1944 and claim that they were the sacrifice-sheep...
Although every information suggested that the germans are about to launch an attack, Ike did nothing.
(large panzer groups sighted -by Group 100th- moving to the Schnee Eifel, captured radio messages from the Reichsbahn, that they carry large amount of troops to the Ardennes, Ultra-messages revealing that the Luftwaffe moving almost all their forces to the area since 20.11.1944, while they badly needed them to defend their country and only the 300th and 301th JG left in Berlin, captured Magic-messages between Hitler and Oshima the japan ambassador in Berlin, suggested a major offence in the western region...etc.)