The Battle of the Bulge: Britain's untold story: ISBN 0750918691

[Johnny Red]

Hi everyone, I don't know if anyone's posted about this book before? If so, I apologize. The book was written by Charles Whiting,

Synopsis; The Battle of the Bulge, fought in the snows of the Ardennes forests in December 1944-January 1945 to stem the final German land offensive of the war, was the greatest land battle waged by the US Army this century. Both popular belief and official history ascribe this victory to the Americans.

For political reasons, no mention was ever made of the crucial British involvement in this battle, when the XXXth 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 troops. The British role in the battle of the Bulge simply does not exist on paper. The main reason for adopting a low key in referring to the British contribution was political, said Field Marshal Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General staff, years later.

In explaining this incredible omission from the history books, the author reveals how General Montgomery was given command of more American divisions in that battle than any other three US Army Commanders combined; how it was that Monty could have three divisions on their way to their positions in the new front two days before US General Patton achieved his celebrated turn around and drive north to Bastogne; and why Patton's drive through three second class German divisions to relieve Bastogne made it into the history books, when in fact it was Monty who stopped the German armored divisions heading to the key target of the Meuse, and won the battle.

Using vivid eyewitness accounts from British, American and German soldiers, and Belgian civilians, Charles Whiting sets out the record straight, telling the true story of the British involvement in the Battle of the Bulge, and at the same time recognizing the hard fighting and suffering they had to endure.

[Procopius]

I've been long looking for a UK-centric Bulge book.

[HL-10]

This is a long over due book!

Will definitely be having a read of this one!

[Panzer Vor!!!]

Fantastic book

Well worth reading definitely one for the bookcase

[rio]

Got this book. Definitely a great read.

[Albeback52]

Time to remake the film perhaps? . I don't think there was the merest hint of even a thought or mention of British involvement in the battle..................................!!!

Allan

[Mr Grumpylee]

I'll be getting myself that one then!

[Pete in Lincs]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Bulge-Britains-Untold-Story/dp/0750918691/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394977101&sr=1-4&keywords=CHARLES+WHITING

Just over seven quid used on Amazon

I always thought it odd how things just sort of came to a halt

and the US forces were suddenly victorious from nowhere.

Even allowing for the sudden change in the weather.

I already have his book on the Battle of Hurtgen Forest.

Now that really was a disaster for US forces.

Mostly through the sheer incompetence of the commanding officers.

[PLC1966]

I certainly spent a night in the WO & Sgt Mess of 7RHA at Aldershot at a Royal Artillery Association meal chatting to a gunner who had been on 25Pdrs during the Bulge. Said they lined up 12 guns, fired constantly for 24 hours, 12 rounds a minute. Which if you see the published rate of fire is some going. They fired 11 guns a time with the twelth having its barrel swapped out in a constant process.

Allowing for veterans memories being sometimes awry, there is obviously some serious hat tipping to be done here to the British Army. Respect.

[Johnny Red]

Just over seven quid used on Amazon

I always thought it odd how things just sort of came to a halt

and the US forces were suddenly victorious from nowhere.

Even allowing for the sudden change in the weather.

I already have his book on the Battle of Hurtgen Forest.

Now that really was a disaster for US forces.

Mostly through the sheer incompetence of the commanding officers.

I thought the same thing Pete, I knew Monty was given command of US troops, but they didn't go into details of what he did this book tells us what happened, I always remember programs informing me that the US Army hated Monty? Again, after reading this book I got the impression that they didn't! In fact the way Monty took control of the battlefront and stabilized it, I believe the US commanders on the ground appreciated and were happy to take orders from him and the troops couldn't care less who was in command as long as they didn't get killed, I don't know about you? I used to wonder why the US troops were so ungrateful and angry when Patton turned up, I used to think it was pride, now I know, thanks to this author, I'm now wondering what else was kept from us for political reasons, personally I've always believed Patton to be an overrated commander, and a historical injustice has been made here not just to Monty but to the British troops of XXXth Corps.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Johnny Red

[HL-10]

The main thing the American commanders had against Monty was that he was "Too cautious", which is why most soldiers under

his command liked him.

The Americans never liked the idea of their soldiers being under the command of non American commanders.

Eisenhower had big problems convincing his superiors to allow Monty control of the 82nd and 101st Airborne during Market Garden.

[Panzer Vor!!!]

The Americans didn't like Monty because he couldn't keep his mouth shut.If he saw something he didn't like or thought was wrong he would say something regardless of who it upset.

He wanted to shoot half his officers in 1940 asking Churchill of he could saying they were useless

[Johnny Red]

The main thing the American commanders had against Monty was that he was "Too cautious", which is why most soldiers under

his command liked him.

The Americans never liked the idea of their soldiers being under the command of non American commanders.

Eisenhower had big problems convincing his superiors to allow Monty control of the 82nd and 101st Airborne during Market Garden.

I've heard that Monty was too cautious, and maybe that's a bad thing to have for some commanders, but I don't think it held Monty back like you wrote the soldiers under his command liked him for it, two other things I liked about Monty was he would inform the troops about the operation and not keep them in the dark, and he wouldn't attack unless he had overwhelming men and materials, yes he did sound like one of them old head masters, and maybe he did talk down to both British and Americans who were given command, but maybe they needed it explained to them in the simplest possible way.

[Johnny Red]

The Americans didn't like Monty because he couldn't keep his mouth shut.If he saw something he didn't like or thought was wrong he would say something regardless of who it upset.

He wanted to shoot half his officers in 1940 asking Churchill of he could saying they were useless

I agree totally with everything you just wrote mate, most people see Monty as this snobby skinny, short arsed man wearing a beret, what they don't or maybe they forget that he was as tough as nails, as you probably know he was shot through the right lung by a sniper and he was hit in the knee and left in no mans land, I think he was there for 24 hrs but don't hold me to it, meanwhile Patton slaps one of his own soldiers with battle stress and thought he was the reincarnation of a Roman that fought in Gaul and Carthage and who pierced Jesus Christs heart with a spear... Okay?

[Panzer Vor!!!]

Monty knew that Britain could not afford the losses on the scale of the first world war, men couldn't be ordered over the top to be mown down , they would n,t follow blindly but if led , ops explained and treated with respect he would have the finest army .

Yes we were slow in advancing into Germany but better slow and sure with a eye to losses then race in regardless of losses was the better option and im sure a lot vets would agree .

To me Monty was a brilliant general a genius but flawed but then all great men are .

[dubster72]

One of the main reasons for the enmity between Monty & the Americans was the fact that he saw the US generals as unproven upstarts who had neither the training or experience to conduct the fight on the Continent. He was constantly in conflict with Eisenhower who, he felt, gave far too many resources to Omar Bradley.

However, Monty made rods for his own back, such as claiming Caen would fall by D+2, which didn't happen. This was primarily due to the German High Commands respect for Monty & our troops.

Consequently, we faced the cream of German forces, mostly SS units, while the Americans were able to achieve the breakout at St Lois.

Unfortunately, much of the history books are written by American writers, such as Stephen Ambrose & give a rather skewed version of events.

[Johnny Red]

Monty knew that Britain could not afford the losses on the scale of the first world war, men couldn't be ordered over the top to be mown down , they would n,t follow blindly but if led , ops explained and treated with respect he would have the finest army .

Yes we were slow in advancing into Germany but better slow and sure with a eye to losses then race in regardless of losses was the better option and im sure a lot vets would agree .

To me Monty was a brilliant general a genius but flawed but then all great men are .

Panzer Vor, I think we're both singing from the same hymn sheet, and yes, I agree Monty had flaws well said mate, can I just take time out to say I'm not anti American but I'm aggrieved at the way not just Monty but the British and Commonwealth troops have been treated for political reasons, even now when I watch saving private Ryan which is a good movie, but the moment when that captain says Monty was overrated I have to fast forward that part, but it's not just that film, Memphis belle should have been about a Lancaster crew? And I'm sure there's many more.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Johnny Red

[Johnny Red]

One of the main reasons for the enmity between Monty & the Americans was the fact that he saw the US generals as unproven upstarts who had neither the training or experience to conduct the fight on the Continent. He was constantly in conflict with Eisenhower who, he felt, gave far too many resources to Omar Bradley.

However, Monty made rods for his own back, such as claiming Caen would fall by D+2, which didn't happen. This was primarily due to the German High Commands respect for Monty & our troops.

Consequently, we faced the cream of German forces, mostly SS units, while the Americans were able to achieve the breakout at St Lois.

Unfortunately, much of the history books are written by American writers, such as Stephen Ambrose & give a rather skewed version of events.

Thank you dubster that's a great comment you made about the cream of the German forces, if I'm right and please tell me if I'm wrong but weren't we up against the 12th SS? They were not only combat motivated, but fanatics, and yes, you're right Monty did make a rod for his back with that claim on Caen.

[Procopius]

The Canadians faced the 12th SS more, but the UK and Commonwealth forces faced all of the better Waffen-SS and Heer formations in Normandy at one time or another. The US really only faced them from COBRA on, by which point they'd been heavily attritted.

[Johnny Red]

The Canadians faced the 12th SS more, but the UK and Commonwealth forces faced all of the better Waffen-SS and Heer formations in Normandy at one time or another. The US really only faced them from COBRA on, by which point they'd been heavily attritted.

Thank you Procopius, for correcting me on who the 12th SS fought against most, I do remember reading about the murder of the 20 Canadians by the 12th SS in the Ardenne Abbey, I also watch a program where this old soldier who fought in the Tank Corps retold a story where this badly wounded 12th SS soldier was lying by a road and has a mate tried to help him but the young boy pull a pistol out on him and he had to shoot the lad.

[HL-10]

Monty was a junior officer in WWI and his experiences in that conflict did shape him as a commander.

He valued the lives of his subordinates and did not want to see the level of casualties that occurred in the first war.

Having read most of Stephen Ambrose WWII books he does have a poor opinion of Monty, and reading between the lines, most of

Britain's senior commanders, but if you read Pegasus Bridge, he has a very high regard for the British fighting man.

(It's a shame that Mr Spielberg, or any one else, hasn't done a "Band of Brothers" with Pegasus Bridge, but there is no US involvement in it).

[Panzer Vor!!!]

History will be written by the victor

We were only part of a winning team

But not the strongest voice

No matter we know

In 1940 a german officer took the surrender of British troops in a farmhouse

The British officer stated the Germans should surrender not the Brits

Why youre army is defeated, running back across the channel??

Soon our panzers will be in London

Yes said the brit

BUT WE WILL BE BACK

The German said he never was sure of victory after that day

[Johnny Red]

Monty was a junior officer in WWI and his experiences in that conflict did shape him as a commander.

He valued the lives of his subordinates and did not want to see the level of casualties that occurred in the first war.

Having read most of Stephen Ambrose WWII books he does have a poor opinion of Monty, and reading between the lines, most of

Britain's senior commanders, but if you read Pegasus Bridge, he has a very high regard for the British fighting man.

(It's a shame that Mr Spielberg, or any one else, hasn't done a "Band of Brothers" with Pegasus Bridge, but there is no US involvement in it).

Hello HL-10, I wouldn't mind reading Pegasus Bridge, and I agree it would be great to see a series like Band of Brothers but with British and commonwealth troops

[Johnny Red]

History will be written by the victor

We were only part of a winning team

But not the strongest voice

No matter we know

In 1940 a german officer took the surrender of British troops in a farmhouse

The British officer stated the Germans should surrender not the Brits

Why youre army is defeated, running back across the channel??

Soon our panzers will be in London

Yes said the brit

BUT WE WILL BE BACK

The German said he never was sure of victory after that day

Hi Panzer a great comment I remember watching a program about tanks in WW2 imagine its 1940 this SS-Obersturmfuhrer who was in reconnaissance talked about the French how they would fight and then when they knew they'd done enough, they would surrender. One day he was told to take charge of some British Pow's he got out from his reconnaissance car and ordered them to stand up move, (his words) "They all stood up formed ranks turned to the right and began to march, and then they started to sing!! It's a long way to Tipperary, we all said God Dam these are real soldiers!" also from the book Loyalty is my Honour by Gordon Willamson, page 164 "I reckon the British were the best soldiers, then the Soviets, but the Americans came last" Werner Busse.

[HL-10]

Hello HL-10, I wouldn't mind reading Pegasus Bridge, and I agree it would be great to see a series like Band of Brothers but with British and commonwealth troops

It is well worth a read!

It goes into great depth about the selection and training leading up to the operation and what happened afterwards.