Battle of the Bulge Anniversary

[theloniusfleabag]

60 years ago, the Battle of the Bulge, or the Ardennes offensive, was Germany's last great gamble of WWII. The Americans consider it a 'great victory' and was the largest USA vs. Germany battle of the war.

However, Hitler believed (and rightly so) that the Americans were the 'weakest link' and knew that they would crumble under fire, his hopes were that he could divide the Allied forces, both tactically and 'morale-wise'.

The Americans did crumble, a lot of them dropped their guns and ran (the exception to this was at Bastonge), and it took British General Montgomery to temporarily assume command of the American 1st and 9th Armies to 'stop the rot'.

A dubious battle to celebrate, but if Hollywood makes a movie about it, the USA will certainly be 'the heroes', saving the world singlehandedly.

[Hugo]

However, Hitler believed (and rightly so) that the Americans were the 'weakest link' and knew that they would crumble under fire

Plenty of people have made that mistake. Admiral Yamamoto made a far better assessment than the Japanese and the Germans who believed that America was a decadent and weak culture.

his hopes were that he could divide the Allied forces, both tactically and 'morale-wise'

Yes, his hope was that he could persuade the British and the Americans to ally with him against the Soviets. He remained delusionally hopeful about this until the day of his death. Hitler's final years are marked by increasing insanity, paranoia, delusion and probably increasing schizophrenia, along with increased physical frailty and drug addiction. I wouldn't put too much stock into anything he said or believed after 1942.

The Americans did crumble, a lot of them dropped their guns and ran (the exception to this was at Bastonge), and it took British General Montgomery to temporarily assume command of the American 1st and 9th Armies to 'stop the rot'.

This is not true. The Wehrmacht waited for overcast weather to keep the vastly superior Allied air forces on the ground before starting their assault. The sheer surprise of their attack got them quite far, except at Bastogne where, as you noted, the 101st Airborne Division put up a dogged resistance. However, their fuel and ammunition soon became too low to keep up the pace, and when the weather cleared Allied air power halted the advance altogether. Then Patton, who had disengaged in the Saar shortly before and quickly moved to the Ardennes, flung his army into battle and pushed the Germans back again.

A dubious battle to celebrate, but if Hollywood makes a movie about it, the USA will certainly be 'the heroes', saving the world singlehandedly.

Well, the historical fact remains that WWII was unwinnable without the USA. It is also probable that even if Hitler had knocked Britain and the USSR out of the war, the USA would still have been able to defeat Germany and Japan in the end.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Well, the historical fact remains that WWII was unwinnable without the USA

I must agree, but in the European theatre, it was solely because the vast US factory production was unbombable. They did perform 'admirably' in the Pacific, mind you, but learned all their lessons the hard way.

It is also probable that even if Hitler had knocked Britain and the USSR out of the war, the USA would still have been able to defeat Germany and Japan in the end.

That is a larf. Besides, the sequence is all conjecture anyway. Had Hitler launched 'Seelowe' and took Britain in 1940, it could have changed the war entirely. Germany would have had the British and French Fleets,(or what was left of them) and with the Italians, had the largest Armada in history. The Russian campaign would have looked totally different. And, as you indicate, it would have happened before Hitler lost his grip.

[Hugo]

I must agree, but in the European theatre, it was solely because the vast US factory production was unbombable.

I think that even if it had been, it would have been unproductive for the Axis to do so. Consider the vast numbers of aircraft and aircrew lost in the bombing of Germany. German anti-air defences were inferior to those of the Allies, and unlike the Allies, the Germans did not have virtually limitless supplies of aircraft and personnel to send over enemy territory every night.

That is a larf. Besides, the sequence is all conjecture anyway.

Toynbee's World in March 1939 puts the relative industrial war potential of the USA at 41.7%, Germany at 14.4%, the USSR at 14.0%, the UK at 10.2%, France at 4.2%, Japan at 3.5% and Italy at 2.5%. In their ability to produce war materiel and trained personnel the USA alone was far greater than all Axis powers combined. You could even add the strength of the USSR and France to them and they still could not match the USA. WWII was a war of production.

Had Hitler launched 'Seelowe' and took Britain in 1940, it could have changed the war entirely.

Hitler could not launch Sealion. Every time he attempted to mass invasion barges, RAF Bomber Command would appear over the ports in question and bomb them to pieces. Even if he could have achieved air superiority, the Royal Navy would have sunk the invasion fleet in the Channel (air power being largely ineffective in naval warfare in 1940, and the Kriegsmarine being no match for the Royal Navy in quality or quantity).

Germany would have had the British and French Fleets,(or what was left of them) and with the Italians, had the largest Armada in history.

I don't believe that would have been the case. Had Britain been invaded, the Royal Navy would have either fought to the last, scuttled the fleet or just set sail for New England. In any case, given the achievements of the USA in naval production it would not have made any difference.

The fact as I see it is that the script for WWII was written before the first shot was fired. The Axis was doomed to lose, and whichever side the USA picked would be the winning side - and it was a foregone conclusion which side it would pick.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Toynbee's World in March 1939 puts the relative industrial war potential of the USA at 41.7%, Germany at 14.4%, the USSR at 14.0%, the UK at 10.2%, France at 4.2%, Japan at 3.5% and Italy at 2.5%. In their ability to produce war materiel and trained personnel the USA alone was far greater than all Axis powers combined

'Potential' is still conjecture, as the US' military production was sorely lacking in 1939. They wanted to stay out of the war even moreso than 'the great appeaser', Chamberlain.

Germany's production only peaked in 1944, even though it had the snot bombed out of it. Japan's production capabilities vastly increased with the taking of the East Indies and South East Asia.

German anti-air defences were inferior to those of the Allies,

I do believe that the .88 was the premiere weapon of the day, and Hitler meddled with too greatly with the production of jets fighters for them to make a difference.

I suppose, Hugo, you are mostly right, for there were too many mistakes made by the Axis, and a whole series of 'ifs' were the only things that could have made a difference. "If Germany had allowed women to work in factories (Like the US and Russia), if they had declared 'total war' to gear military production even higher, If Hitler had not made a few key tactical blunders....if he would have fired Goering the morphine addict early on....

As to the 'trained personel' of the US, I think only Italy fielded a more incompetent military.

[Hugo]

'Potential' is still conjecture, as the US' military production was sorely lacking in 1939.

Exactly. The USA had plenty of idle factories and thousands of unemployed workers who could be harnessed for production of war materiel and soldiers. The German economy was already overheating by 1939, as evidenced by the drop in standards of living experienced under Hitler and so forth.

Germany's production only peaked in 1944, even though it had the snot bombed out of it.

German production was borne up in large part by slave labour and by gold confiscated from the treasuries of occupied countries. This gold alone gave Germany a massive advantage over the Allies, who only had their own gold reserves (although Roosevelt had already confiscated all privately-owned American gold), but they still could not come close to American production.

Japan's production capabilities vastly increased with the taking of the East Indies and South East Asia.

Because the production capabilites of the East Indies and South East Asia were considerable compared to Japan, this is true. However, because the production capabilities of all three were miniscule compared to the USA, it did not make a difference.

I do believe that the .88 was the premiere weapon of the day, and Hitler meddled with too greatly with the production of jets fighters for them to make a difference.

Germany had a serious shortage of trained pilots. The men in German fighter planes were grossly incompetent compared to Allied pilots. This alone seriously compromised their air defences. Unskilled men are only useful if you have millions of them, as Stalin did, but Hitler did not. Furthermore, German radar technology lagged well behind Allied radar throughout the war (in 1940, the Germans still did not have any radar capability) which meant that their air defences were far more inflexible and incapable of rapid response and accurate threat assessment.

As to the 'trained personel' of the US, I think only Italy fielded a more incompetent military.

It depends on who you are talking about, soldiers or generals. When discussing soldiers, it's all about training. A German soldier who had spent his childhood hiking and firing rifles in the Hitler Youth and seen action in the Spanish Civil War or some other theater was a better soldier than a US soldier who had spent several weeks in boot camp, who in turn was a better soldier than a Russian infantryman drafted from his field, issued a rifle and told which direction to run in.

But in the end, training and skill did not matter in WWII. It was an industrial-age war fought with industrial methods. He who could field the most men and the most tanks and planes would win, and the skill of the men did not matter so much. This is why Germany was never going to win. Although the German fighting man was highly skilled and brave, German industry could not back him up and German logistics could not keep him supplied.

It is possible to envisage a scenario in which Germany could have won, but this can only involve a human factor, i.e. genius on the part of the German leadership (which all too often embodied stupidity instead) and stupidity on the part of the Allies.

[caesar]

Well, the historical fact remains that WWII was unwinnable without the USA. It is also probable that even if Hitler had knocked Britain and the USSR out of the war, the USA would still have been able to defeat Germany and Japan in the end.

It is NOT a fact. That is your viewpoint and a lot of Americans.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

genius on the part of the German leadership (which all too often embodied stupidity instead) and stupidity on the part of the Allies.

Germany had their share of genius, with Rommel, Guderian, Hoth, Kluger, Manteuffel, etc, but also too many 'yes men' afraid to give Hitler any news that wasn't good, or even realistic. Goering and Keitel especially, but also 'The Fuhrer's Mephistopheles', Bormann.

The men in German fighter planes were grossly incompetent compared to Allied pilots

What!? I can only assume you mean near the end of the war, as the German pilots were top of the heap. Richard Bong, the USA's top ace counted some 40 kills (in the Pacific) while Germany's Eric Hartmann counted some 320 (the allies gave him something like 240). Germany almost won the Battle of Britain, had Hitler not re-focused the Luftwaffe away from airbases and instead on civilians in population centres.

It was an industrial-age war fought with industrial methods. He who could field the most men and the most tanks and planes would win, and the skill of the men did not matter so much.

I must concur, it became a war of 'industrial attrition' the likes of which we may not see again.

[Hugo]

It is NOT a fact. That is your viewpoint and a lot of Americans.

No, it is a fact. I'd offer a better argument, but I notice that you didn't make any argument at all, so why should I waste my time on you?

Germany had their share of genius, with Rommel, Guderian, Hoth, Kluger, Manteuffel, etc, but also too many 'yes men' afraid to give Hitler any news that wasn't good, or even realistic.

Add von Ribbentrop, Sperrle, Himmler and so forth to your list. The problem in the Nazi regime was that the competent men were all lower down in the command chain, whereas the blunderers and yes-men were in prime positions.

What!? I can only assume you mean near the end of the war, as the German pilots were top of the heap.

At the start of the war the Germans had many veterans of the Spanish Civil War. However, within a short period of time these veterans had all been killed and German training programmes were very sub-standard compared to Allied programmes. Germany had such a manpower shortage that pilots were sent into the air with only a few hours of flying time when Allied rookies had been training for months.

Germany almost won the Battle of Britain, had Hitler not re-focused the Luftwaffe away from airbases and instead on civilians in population centres.

Even winning the Battle of Britain would not have guaranteed success to Sealion due to the power of the Royal Navy.

[PocketRocket]

Well, the historical fact remains that WWII was unwinnable without the USA. It is also probable that even if Hitler had knocked Britain and the USSR out of the war, the USA would still have been able to defeat Germany and Japan in the end.

It is NOT a fact. That is your viewpoint and a lot of Americans.

Actually, it is arguable that he's right, but only inasmuch as the Americans contributed HUGE amounts of arms to both Britain and Russia via the Lend-Lease act.

Without those arms, Britain may indeed have fallen.

As for the rest, there are a huge nember of war historians who disagree, and who say that Germany would still have lost without American intervention.

Japan is another story altogether.

[caesar]

Of course the fresh troops and arms from America were a great help but our Canadian troops and British troops did a remarkable job. The USA did not win the war for us; we all won together. Without their help; the war would have gone on much longer.

[Hugo]

British and Canadian troops did do a remarkable job, as did their German counterparts, but that is irrelevant. The fact is that Britain came quite close to defeat and, had the Nazis not made some serious strategic blunders, would most probably have been starved into submission.

Even allowing for German mistakes, Britain would not have been able to hang on without American shipments of war materiel and food. And even with those shipments, Britain still stood no chance of invading Europe without direct American military intervention. Without an invasion of Europe, Britain would have merely waited until Hitler consolidated his gains in the East and then have been beaten down by the resources of the entirety of continental Europe.

The Soviets came extraordinarily close to defeat. Were it not for American aid they probably would have been defeated by Germany, and if Hitler had launched Barbarossa six weeks earlier their fate would have been sealed.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

The fact is that Britain came quite close to defeat and, had the Nazis not made some serious strategic blunders, would most probably have been starved into submission

Indeed, and the US supplies almost never made it because the US refused advice from the UK on convoy systems and escorts. Finally, the US aquiesed and accepted some british mine-sweepers, but refused to be told how to use or deploy them. Technology kept one step ahead of the Germans though, with the advent of the 'Mark 24 mine' (a homing torpedo) and the Brits and Canadians honed their escort skills. Still, it was touch and go.

You are right, probably the biggest blunder (apart from trying to eradicate the Jews, for Germany may have developed the Nuke way earlier) was Hitler postponing Barbarossa, and then diverting much needed forces from Moscow to try to take Stalingrad based on it's name alone.

[August1991]

My understanding is that Lend-Lease to Russia only become large by 1943.

The Nazis did not lose in 1941, they lost in 1942 by not taking Stalingrad. I believe by 1942 too, Russian tank production exceeded German production.

Following Hitler's blitzkrieg style, Moscow was the goal in 1941.

In 1942, the goal was more pragmatic. The purpose of aiming for Stalingrad was to control the oil resources of the Caucasus.

The encirclement of von Paulus was the decisive event in the war and that occurred in January 1943 although the Russian advances in the winter of 1941/42 were also very important.

In Europe at least, WWII was a visceral battle between Germany and Russia.

I happen to think that if Moscow had fallen, or even if Stalingrad had fallen, I still don't think the Germans would have won.

Lastly, after some thought, I came to the conclusion that no single soldier won the battle (although some soldiers achieved more than others). Which straw breaks the camel's back? The last one placed or all the others before?

Hence, it is wrong to say that Russia defeated Germany.

[Aidan Pryde]

The Industrial contribution of America to both lend lease and the war effort in general isn't as great as it's been made to seem.

Lend Lease for example, most of the Lend Lease tanks sent to the Soviet Union in the crucial year of 1942 were not American but rather British and Canadian. American tanks didn't start arriving in large numbers until 1943 and 1944 when the Soviets were taking the offensive and none of the tanks supplied to the Soviets from America were heavy tanks, they were no match for the German tanks that the Soviet Union had to face.

As for overall war production, let's compare tank production in the major powers. In 1944 the height of the war, Germany produced 17,800 tanks, America produced 17,500, Britain produced 5,000, and the Soviet Union produced 29,000 tanks. Furthermore almost all of the tanks produced by America were light and medium tanks while the Soviet Union built thousands of far larger and more powerful heavy tanks such as the IS-2s. The Soviet Union's tank production was effectively twice that of America's.

It's no doubt that American contributed greatly to winning World War II but they did nowhere near as much as the Soviet Union to defeat Germany.

[Guest eureka]

I had thought this debate to have been settled years ago.

The German defeat was inevitable after El Alamein. There, the German Army suffered its first defeat of the war. It was a defeat that destroyed the myth of German invincinibility and that of the overarching genius of Rommel.

El Alamein was also a large part of the reason for the failure of "Barbarossa." That offensive was, to a great extent, predicated on the assumption of Rommel gaining control of the Mediterranean coast and the Suez supply routes; cutting off the Allied supplies. That was also, in some part, the reason for the delay of Barbarossa - the desire to facilitate the Russian campaign with success in North Africa.

Stalingrad confirmed the inevitable victory with the destruction of German military power.

Actually, the outcome of the war was never really in doubt when the "Battle of Britain" went to Britain. It was more a question of who would help in the mitigation of the effects of the war from then on.

[August1991]

eureka, that is an extreme British perspective on the war.

IME, if you go to an American war museum, the Americans won the war. If you go to a French war museum, de Gaulle was critical to the war effort. And so on.

The only place I haven't seen this is Germany. German war museums have interesting displays about submarines.

While it's now out of date, my favourite book on the war is Bullock's Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. "Hitler's Table Talks", used throughout, make it plain that Russia was Hitler's objective. The battles on that front far exceeded anything in the west or in North Africa.

BTW, El Alamein occurred in 1942, after the Russians had stopped the Germans and even pushed them back in 1941/42.

For comparison, consider the Battle of Kursk in July 1943:

Armour and troop concentrations were also built up by both sides with the Russians amassing 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces and 2,400 aircraft. The Germans also assembled a formidable fighting force which was slightly smaller with 900,000 men 2,700 tanks 2,000 aircraft. As well as the three premier Waffen SS divisions taking part.

Web Site

... and the Battle of El-Alamein in the fall of 1942:

To cope with Montgomery’s attack, the Germans had 110,000 men and 500 tanks. A number of these tanks were poor Italian tanks and could not match the new Sherman’s. The Germans were also short of fuel. The Allies had more than 200,000 men and more than 1000 tanks.

Web Site

[Guest eureka]

I agree that it is a British perspective. I also think that we don't have to rewrite history to allow for the production of Hollywood movies that show how a nation that spent only a short time at war, won it for us who were at war.

I had two older brothers who fought at El Alamein. Both made a study of the campaigns. They had not much doubt that it was the turning point of the war and for the Russian Front in ending the German aim for control of the Meditarranean and the Middle East.

El Alamein came before Stalingrad and it came also after the Germans had been stopped and were regrouping. They has not, however, suffered a major defeat in any trial of strength before El Alamein which was the beginning of the end for Germany.

I am always amused at the earnest discussions of near British defeat and the probabilities of successful German invasion if only one or the other conditions - usually a Hitler misjudgement. Only those who did not know Britain could debate this. Churchill's "fight them on the Beaches...." was no flight of fancy. German invaders would have been massacred.

[Hugo]

These are all what-if games. As I understand it, there are a few near-certainties.

Firstly, although Britain might have been able to stave off German invasion there was no way that an invasion of the continent could have been launched without American resources. Therefore, the war in the West would have been, at best, a stalemate, which is hardly a win. One can quite possibly forsee a scenario in which Hitler bided his time until such time as Europe was entirely his and then amassed a force Britain could not possibly repulse.

In the East, there are several factors. Had Hitler not launched his attack six weeks too late and allocated far too many resources to Stalingrad, combined with refusing to order a strategic retreat from the city, he would have most probably been at the Urals by the end of the campaigning season (which is relatively short, due to the spring rasputitsa and the harsh winter). At this point, given what we know of Stalin's tendency towards pessimism, mood swings and depression, the USSR probably would have sued for peace.

Had there not been a Western front, Germany could have probably beaten back the Soviet forces even as it was. Before the invasion, German troops were required to be stationed in the West and the Luftwaffe had to keep up an air campaign and defend Germany from British and American air raids. The reallocation of these resources would have been significant. Indeed, the D-Day landings were performed not because it was the best time but because the Western allies felt that Stalin's patience was wearing too thin, and if they did not acquiesce to his demands to open a second front soon he might make a separate peace.

Had there not been a Western front in 1944-45, it is probable that the Soviet advance would have been halted in the Ukraine or Poland. Soviet infrastructure was rudimentary at best and had been virtually destroyed by the German attack and the Soviet scorched-earth policy and then again by the German scorched-earth policy and the Soviet counter-attack. As the Soviets tried to maintain increasingly long supply lines over what in many cases were no more than dirt roads, while the German supply lines (with plenty of railroads) drew shorter, the counter-attack would have faltered had the substantial armies allocated to the Western front instead been fighting in Russia.

Hence, my argument is that in all probability, the best-case scenario for a WWII fought without American involvement is a stalemate or standstill. I believe that the actual defeat and destruction of Nazi Germany was only possible with American intervention.

[Aidan Pryde]

The idea that it was a certainty Western Allies could not have invaded Euriope without American help is simply not true. Most of the soldiers who invaded Normandy historically were British and Canadian not American. Most of the naval support came from Britain. If the Americans had not been in the war Britain and Canada would have simply allocated more troops to an invasion to make up for the lack of American troops.

Also that Hitler could have defeated the Soviet Union without a Western Front to distract him isn't true, by the time a Western Front came into existence the Soviet Union had already won, by 1944 the Western Allies could have simply stopped fighting Germany and the Red Army would have defeated Germany.

Without America Germany still would have been won no matter what. Without the Soviet Union there would have been no victory though.

[Big Blue Machine]

Russia won the war, not the allies. Russia would have won the war without the westren front. Germany expanded too quickly in Russia. They weren't prepared for the winter.

[Hugo]

The Soviet point is highly debatable. The Russians came perilously close to defeat. Put Hitler's offensive back six weeks when it was supposed to be launched, have somebody talk him out of sending all the troops to Stalingrad and refusing to let them leave, and take away Western supplies to Russia and you have a very different picture.

Then you have the Germans at the Urals, with Siberian industry in range of the Luftwaffe and all major Soviet population centers in German control. Considering that Stalin refused to speak to anybody for weeks after the German assault it's fairly safe to assume that there would have been no Russian leadership either since everybody in the USSR was afraid to breathe without permission from Stalin by that point.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think it is true that Soviet infrastructure was destroyed. The Soviet Union was outproducing Germany in military equipment by 1942. Britain was also producing superior equipment: tanks are a prime example.

Had the Germans not committed large forces to the Eastern Frint, then it is likely that the Soviets would have advanced into Poland and Germeny much earlier. Once committed there, Germany was doomed. They were in a box of their own making from which they coud not withdraw. Also, it is likely that Roosevelt would not have committed one of the war's greatest errrors in refusing to support Churchill in the plan to send forces to support the Polish uprising as Stalin wished.

There was never really a hope for Germany from the beginning. They had taken on a far superior opponent who had great difficulties in the early stages simply because they were unprepared and needed time to mobilise.

Had Germany taken all Europe first (something that I don't really see as a possibility), then it would have bled slowly to death. The forces required for the occupation ( I exclude Britain which it coud never have taken) would have paralyzed Germany. Their war would have been limited to a frantic defense of their conquests from internal and external forces.

Wars of conquest can never achieve more than short term success. No great power that fights such wars remains long a Great Power. Roman times are long gone and the world is much more cohesive.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

German training programmes were very sub-standard compared to Allied programmes.

Actually the Germans had very comprehensive military training from youth through adulthood under the Nazi regime. They controlled all youth (and other)organizations , and the HJ was like the military Boy Scouts. Youth in the Reich received badges for marksmanship, glider proficiency (training for the Luftwaffe), the NSKK taught driving skills (relatively new at this stage) for future Panzer crews, you name it.

Dear eureka,

Britain was also producing superior equipment: tanks are a prime example.

What??! German tanks were unparalleled throughout much of the war. The Churchill and the Cromwell were ok, the Matilda a sturdy workhorse, but no match for even the Panzer MKVI, let alone the Tiger. The King Tiger, although prone to breakdowns and a gas guzzler, was virtually impenetrable. The Russians only developed the T-34 in '42 (Which Heinz Guderian grudgingly admitted was 'the best tank in the world')

I don't think it is true that Soviet infrastructure was destroyed

Not exactly, but the Soviets had to move (physically dismantle and move!) the bulk of it's factories beyond the Urals. Only there, free from bombardment, did they begin to outproduce Germany.

Also, it is likely that Roosevelt would not have committed one of the war's greatest errrors in refusing to support Churchill in the plan to send forces to support the Polish uprising as Stalin wished.

Um, when was this? 1939, or the Warsaw Uprising? Either way, the western allies could do nothing for Poland.

They had taken on a far superior opponent who had great difficulties in the early stages simply because they were unprepared and needed time to mobilise

Everybody was unprepared, even Germany. However, they crushed Russia at every turn until they hit Moscow, winter, and Hitler's bad calls.

[Guest eureka]

TFB, you should, perhaps, read the story of El Alamein. One of the decisive factors in that battle was the superior tanks of the Allies: Sherman tanks in that case.

The "Uprising" of 1943. Churchill promised the Poles that there would be military support and Stalin expected it. Roosevelt would not agree - the Americans never learned, as Eisenhower later emphasised after DDay, that wars were not best fought with huge armies spread over long, slow moving fronts.

Support them, in Poland, might have put an entirely different face on the war.