hi all,

after looking up some info for a question about the particiapants in the battle of the bulge, and found this

'The Battle of the Bulge was the greatest land battle waged by the US Army this century. Both popular belief and official history attribute this victory to the Americans. For political reasons no mention was ever made of the crucial British involvement in this battle, when the XXX Corps fought a decisive action and halted the German drive to the river Meuse-but against a total news blackout and at the cost of 2,500 British trrops. The British role in the Battle of the Bulge does not exist on paper. Using eyewitness accounts from British, American, and german soldiers, and belgian citizens, this book will set the record straight, telling the true story of the British involvement in the Battle of the Bulge. '

an extract from 'Battle of the Bulge' by charles whiting

this and other sources suggest we had a crucial role in the battle, halting the german advance before the meuse, and also helping pattons troops drive back the germans,

once again politics overshadows the achivements of the man on the ground

cheers

joe

Many historians here in the states take Charles Whiting's works with a grain of salt lately. More and more often lately, Whiting's books go out of their way to belittle American accomplishments. Among his allegations are that Patton knew the Germans would launch the Ardennes Offensive and did nothing to stop this, which is pure fantasy. Also, the British, who did contribute greatly to the bulge, did not have troops on the southern front of the Ardennes. The British Army held the northern flank of the allied front, which is why Monty was given tactical and strategic command of the northern flank of the bulge. He was closer than Bradley because that's where his army group was.
Whiting is also wrong in saying that American histories make no mention of British contributions to victory. I have several American printed accounts of the bulge that mention the British taking part in the battle and helping the American 2nd Armored Division destroy the 2nd Panzer Division, which had made the deepest penetration before stopping due to gas shortages. Those accounts also discuss the invaluable role played by British airpower in the critical battle at Celles where the German spearhead was smashed.
As with any historical account trying to push a somewhat controversial viewpoint, it's important to know the writer's past works and any axes they may have to grind.

I was actually planning on posting something along this line. I just got a book from the The Military Book Club titled The 2nd Armored Division, "Hell on Wheels", by Steven Smith. At the end of the book he has an assessment of the 2nd Armored in WWII. Boiled down here his theory. When the bulge occurred Eisenhower made the decision to place US troops north of the bulge under Montgomery's command. This left Bradley and Patton pretty much out of the picture. For various reasons they had to use their public relations power to get the focus shifted from the advance of the panzer divisions to Bastogne. In this way Bradley and Patton could continue to get the glory for the battle. An example of his theory is the following.

"2nd Armored decisive obliteration of the German spearhead was all but covered up at the time by the spinmeisters at 12th Army Group and has been largely forgotten since. To Bradley and Patton, Bastogne had to be the key to the battle as it was presented to the U.S. public."

To me, as an American, what little I've read about the battle has been mainly, "The Germans attacked, the 106th Division slowed them down as much as possible, the 101st held Bastogne, and Patton came to the rescue." This leaves very little room for anybody, let alone the British Army, to get any of the credit.

My interest has been stirred on this topic. I think I'll do a lil reading and post what I find as well. I think a common mistake with history is that people fall into patterns, like what halfyank described, basically -- patton came to the rescue. People don't go back and try to study the topic and possible remove the spin and politics from it. I think would clear up alot of issues and give credit where credit is due.

Sean

From what I understand, Montgomery moved XXX Corps down to backstop the Meuse River crossings. I believe, I don't have my books here at home, that only one British Brigade actually engaged Germans east of the Meuse. As far as RAF participation, both USAAF and RAF suported both Allies throughout the entire war.

My Dad was in Second Division - Hell on Wheels, and I grew up w/ shrines to Patton around the house.
I'd hate to see any role of the Brits discounted for any reason.
We'll not get the real story if beloved politics comes in.

Nonetheless, as i was a tad surprised to hear the Band of Brothers gang from the 101st
saying they didnt need Patton to "rescue" them.
I would've thought they'd have been grateful, even though they were obviously tough guys.

The men of the 101st were probably grateful deep down inside, but they were also accustomed to being surrounded, since that is the very nature of their intended mission.
I think their overall mindset is best exemplified by a quote often attributed to a member of the 101st that states, "They've got us surrounded, the poor bastards."
Besides, they had help from the 9th and 10th Armored Divisions, and independent tank destroyer battalion, and several independent artillery batteries.

war machine,

thanks for he info on whiting, im not familiar with his other works, but from what you say bias may play a pretty big part in his work, sounds to me like another stephen ambrose, only with an opposite viewpoint.

cheers

joe

One of the main reason british participation in the Battle of the Bulge is often forgotten is because of the problems that occured after. Basically when the battle started the northern half of 12 AG was passed to the command of montgomery and 21 AG. Afterwards Monty made some claims that he single handedly one the batte, a statement that was clearly untrue. As such he was forced to retract the statement and thus a bad picture was painted and since much has been forgotten about the redeployment of XXX Corps to Meuse.

I agree on that statement. They're too proud to openly admit they're grateful to Patton's rescue. On being surrounded, that's the price to pay for operating behind enemy lines given the nature of their operations.

As for the Brits in the Bulge, I wasn't aware of that. Most of the material (on hand) I read about that battle/campaign showed Americans doing all the fighting there, I didn't even see pictures of British forces. It made me assume that the Battle of the Bulge was entirely an American operation.

Well I hope I don't step on any toes here but in the Battle of the Bulge the British did help and as stated one brigade was engaged but it was not a substantial contribution!The Main assault of the German 6 SS panzer army fell on the 2nd and 28th Infantry Divisions who held their ground along Elsborn Ridge. The 7 Armored Division held Saint Vith till forced out of the Goose Egg pulling back to Elsborn Ridge after heavy losses, they also inflicted heavy losses in return!This effectively stalled the main thrust! This then shifted the point of the attack to the 5th Panzer Army( Which had over run the 106th Infantry Division due to a misunderstood command by the commander of the 106th) to the south which was effectively blocked at Bastonge by the 101 AB Div and the 10 Armored division! No I know you are all not going to want to hear this but it was the Third Army that did cut into the bulge in an excellent show of flexibility (No this is not propaganda it is fact!) from disengaging from a fight to their front turning 90 degrees and attacking within 2 days! Yes the Second Armored Did attack the 2nd Panzer Division at Celles on Christmas day and did destroy them due the supply problem caused by the road block at Bastonge! This was also in direct Violation of Montgomery's orders not to attack! But Ernie Harmon the Commander of the Second spotted a Loop hole in his orders and attacked! So yes the British did help in the battle and did so with all Honor! BUT they were not major players in this battle and the reason that the British participation was downplayed was due to Monties posturing after the battle when Winston Churchill had to order it played down to stop the problems that were being caused by Monty in this matter. In fact it all boiled down to Eisenhower telling Monty if he did not stop his antics that one of them would have to go and he did not think the Joint Chief of Staff would fire the Supreme Commander. At this Monty backed off and Brave British Troops did not get the recognition they so justly deserved! So No it was not Americans who downplayed the role of the British Troops it was the British High command and Civilian Leadership that did it to calm a situation that should not have been stirred up in the first place. I would suggest that if you want to know what happened there you do some serious research into the subject and you will be amazed that Yes American Troops did stop the Best the German could Throw at them! And Yes the British did help but were by no means the deciding factor! Sorry if this has hurt anyone's feelings but the facts don't change just because you don't Like what they say.
Cheers
Jeff Larkin

Jeff-- this is a nice rund own. I would argue some of the fine points you bring out, but would agree with your conclusion. Nice job.
DJ