Suggested reads for Bulge / Ardennes??

[Big Boss]

As a fellow Swede I feel I should chime in om Bergström. He is an amateur historian...

From Another Swede!

Well written and I mostly agree with what you wrote but I have some observations.

I don't make that sharp distinction between a ”professional” and an ”amateur” historian as you do. I think it's over simplifying to state that a  professional historian would never fail to "contextualize" a historical topic.

That Mr Bergström wouldn't be aware of the "swing of revisionism and counter-revisionism" is IMO wrong as he clearly and often describes the past (mostly allied) history writing about the Bulge and how he come up with new conclusions using material from a massive Archival research and a familiarity with primary sources from both sides.

That leads up to the definition of what a "professional" historian is. IMO it seems to come down to education (as in a "professional" education), like a degree and peer review articles. If this is a precondition to produces what is considered "good" material compared to amateurs seems to be a hard question to ask. For example, a history degree from former East Germany is not much worth in Germany these days. What I wanted to say is that the background of the author is by no means a predetermination factor for the quality of the written material. Autumn Gale (Herbststurm) written by Jack Didden and Maarten Swarts and the gigantic KURSK: The Battle of Prokhorovka book by Christopher A. Lawrence seems to be fairly well received even if written by amateurs.

The question if Mr Bergström is a "Wehrmacht cultist" need my opinion as well. Cult, with its negative signification seems to be in fashion whenever a author holds an admiration for the quality of the German Soldier, leadership, tiger tank or whatever. But then again when I read an account from the "Allied" side there is almost everywhere some admiration as well. Either examples of stalwart defense, attack against all odds (sometimes even Band of Brothers type of glorification), man against tank etc.  the author includes these special incidents with no apparent ulterior motive to exaggerate. For examples the Medal of Honor citations are takes as example for superhuman, heroic, unselfish efforts. But every nation participating in the war had their quantity of "heroes", just read the German Knight Cross citations. But when such stories from the Axis side is told the "Cult" description have a much easier time to pop up.

Mr Bergström criticizes the commanders of both sides noting Pieper’s grave error in not turning north and rolling up the American defenses at the twin villages Rocherath-Krinkelt and Panzer Lehr’s wandering lost and failing to take Bastogne early in the battle. Likewise though US commanders were slow to appreciate the situation and only Ike’s personal intervention got desperately needed reinforcements moving. And I have written in earlier posts Montgomery for once gets a balanced account.

Regarding the statement about the Me-262 I think a lot of great ww2 authors have named their best weapons; Be it the Spitfire, Mustang, Jeep, Spandau, Sherman, T-34 etc. Your right in that sort of list is impossible to verify and even harder to get consensus for .

[Jotte]

Re: Swedish authors, its to bad Michael Tamelander and/or Niklas Zetterling have not written a work on the Ardennes (That I'm aware of at least). Greatly enjoyed their very readable and professional previous works.

Still on the fence about shelling out 400-500 sek for the Bulge book by Bergström.  To bad I didnt get it in swedish around its release from SMB when it was like 250-300 sek. 

Edit: Hmm looks like its available for 353 sek from one large vendor now...hmmmmm *ponders purches*

Edited January 13, 2016 by TJT

[Badger73]

<snipped>

I don't make that sharp distinction between a ”professional” and an ”amateur” historian as you do. I think it's over simplifying to state that a  professional historian would never fail to "contextualize" a historical topic.

<snipped>

Maybe "Academic" as opposed to "Popular" historian is a better description instead.  In this case the rigor (or lack of) described is as applied by academia's publication formal review process.

[Big Boss]

Maybe "Academic" as opposed to "Popular" historian is a better description instead.  In this case the rigor (or lack of) described is as applied by academia's publication formal review process.

Thats a pretty good one. I for one can see how this debate could go one for quite a while for no real benefits for the matter at hand, good books about the Battle of the Bulge. Its hard and often not quite necessary to make other people change their minds about favorite books etc, myself very much included. 

[Pak40]

Osprey do a series of Order of Battle books on the Bulge battles which give great overviews and situation maps suitable for scenario designers. I have used them to put together one of the battles that will get released with the title.

I have 3 or 4 of these and I like them very much for the maps. The battle descriptions are rather brief but coupled with the well drawn maps give a nice sense of what and how it went down. Unfortunately, there are several glaring errors to the OOBs in some of the books. Off the top of my head, one of the diagrams showing the composition of the U.S. "heavy" Armored division shows a ridiculous number of armored battalions. In another error, an AT battalion is shown with a cavalry symbol. Still, I'm glad they were published - the maps alone are gold.

[BletchleyGeek]

The question if Mr Bergström is a "Wehrmacht cultist" need my opinion as well. Cult, with its negative signification seems to be in fashion whenever a author holds an admiration for the quality of the German Soldier, leadership, tiger tank or whatever. But then again when I read an account from the "Allied" side there is almost everywhere some admiration as well. Either examples of stalwart defense, attack against all odds (sometimes even Band of Brothers type of glorification), man against tank etc.  the author includes these special incidents with no apparent ulterior motive to exaggerate. For examples the Medal of Honor citations are takes as example for superhuman, heroic, unselfish efforts. But every nation participating in the war had their quantity of "heroes", just read the German Knight Cross citations. But when such stories from the Axis side is told the "Cult" description have a much easier time to pop up.

 

Mr Bergström criticizes the commanders of both sides noting Pieper’s grave error in not turning north and rolling up the American defenses at the twin villages Rocherath-Krinkelt and Panzer Lehr’s wandering lost and failing to take Bastogne early in the battle. Likewise though US commanders were slow to appreciate the situation and only Ike’s personal intervention got desperately needed reinforcements moving. And I have written in earlier posts Montgomery for once gets a balanced account.

When I classified him under that "category" - which isn't free of irony, mind you - was because I appreciated in his account how his admiration for the Wehrmacht - not the Waffen SS - transpired in some parts of the book.

I do think that in general, he has a tendency to elevate the accomplishments of FJ units (still, the episode at Lanzerath with the 99th US Division I&R platoon is pretty much described as a failure in command at the Battalion level, which I think is right on the money). He does indeed criticise - and in this he's not the first, see the works of Charles S. Nipe on the operations of Waffen SS Panzer division during the summer and autumn of 1943 in the Soviet Union - and to point out that SS formations had awful problems when it came to the "boring" parts of waging war, that is, general staff work. And I do think that Peiper wasn't by any reckoning the brilliant panzer leader some American and British authors have claimed over the years. Waffen SS units had a tendency to end up doing frontal attacks... when operating under the command of Waffen SS Corps and Armies. Go figure.

His study of the battles around Bastogne after the linking up between the 4th US Armoured and the encircled forces in Bastogne is very valuable, since those battles have hardly been covered from the German point of view, and indeed, most popular (as in number of books sold) such a "Time for Trumpets" all but ignore them. But his analysis of those battles gives a blind eye to processes that I think moulded the battle in fundamental ways - such as the blatant inexperience of units such as the 11th Armoured, the 17th Airborne Division, etc. and the rugged terrain favouring the defense - buying whole the "chest thumping" of veterans of GrossDeutschland (who manned the Fuhrer Begleit Brigade), etc. Comparing the performance of crack troops in prepared defensive positions against greenhorns is hard when one wants to be fair (and in this particular case, Bergstrom wasn't).

[Big Boss]

When I classified him under that "category"...

Well written and I agree with the points you make. Its true that mr bergström holds a very high admiration for the FJ units in the 7. Army and most of all the 5.Fallschirmjäger-Division. He states that the 7.Army accomplished most of all German higher command units given the scope of their operations and the small resources at their disposal. I have read two of George M. Nipe´s `books (Blood, Steel, Myth And Decision in the Ukraine) and see the familiarities you mentions to the Ardennes how Waffen-SS was often unimaginative lead on the higher echelons although how competent officers and NCOs on lower levels sometimes had the ability to correct these with superior tactics or manoeuvres (Not Peiper then of course ).

I do think that Bergström mentions that the 17th AB and 11th AD were green, over reliant on artillery and air support and fought in pro-defence-positions but as you said maybe not enough. And this tends to create a negative US-perspective (missed US oppertunites, uncompetent commanders, etc) while the German misstakes are maybe more blaimed on the the allied air attacks and lack of supplies and gets a more neutral description.

[c3k]

I have 3 or 4 of these and I like them very much for the maps. The battle descriptions are rather brief but coupled with the well drawn maps give a nice sense of what and how it went down. Unfortunately, there are several glaring errors to the OOBs in some of the books. Off the top of my head, one of the diagrams showing the composition of the U.S. "heavy" Armored division shows a ridiculous number of armored battalions. In another error, an AT battalion is shown with a cavalry symbol. Still, I'm glad they were published - the maps alone are gold.

(Minor point, not having seen what you're describing. Early US Armored divisions were, indeed, "Heavy". That was used to describe the Armored divisions with 6 tank battalions, 3 armored inf. battalions, and the rest of their arty/recce, etc. (It might've just been one that was like that. 1st?) Anyway, the rest of them soon just had 3 tank battalions, and then the rest. Yes, 6 battalions (of 57 tanks each) was a bit unwieldy. All this from memory, so caveat emptor and all that.)

[Pak40]

(Minor point, not having seen what you're describing. Early US Armored divisions were, indeed, "Heavy". That was used to describe the Armored divisions with 6 tank battalions, 3 armored inf. battalions, and the rest of their arty/recce, etc. (It might've just been one that was like that. 1st?) Anyway, the rest of them soon just had 3 tank battalions, and then the rest. Yes, 6 battalions (of 57 tanks each) was a bit unwieldy. All this from memory, so caveat emptor and all that.)

Yes, they were heavy but I think he put two extra battalions in there. I'll check it out later tonight when I get home. Also, just checked the series on Amazon and a reviewer posted a similar error in the OOB:

Osprey Bulge OOB series

[Half-Track Goner]

For the Northern Shoulder of the bulge, I highly recommend The Shock of War by J.C. Doherty.

I picked up Volume II based in part on your description and found it to be well researched and the many accounts of small-unit combat well-written. Thanks!

[Pak40]

I picked up Volume II based in part on your description and found it to be well researched and the many accounts of small-unit combat well-written. Thanks!

You're welcome. I've just started another book last night by Will Cavanaugh that you may be interested in also: The Battle East of Elsenborn and the Twin Vilages

J.C. Doherty lists this book as one of his sources. It has some well made maps(much better than Doherty's book) and has some great aerial photos of the different battle areas.

[JonS]

(... Early US Armored divisions were, indeed, "Heavy". That was used to describe the Armored divisions with 6 tank battalions, 3 armored inf. battalions, and the rest of their arty/recce, etc. (It might've just been one that was like that. 1st?)

1st, 2nd, and 3rd were all Heavy.

1st fought only in the Med (North Africa, Italy), and converted to light scales before it went to Italy in late 1943.

2nd fought in North Africa, Sicily and NWE - incl Normandy - and stayed on the heavy scales throughout.

3rd fought only in NWE - incl Normandy - and stayed on the heavy scales throughout

 

Yes, they were heavy but I think he put two extra battalions in there.

 

Is it possible the extra two were attachments?

Edit 2: Oh, I see what you mean now. Page 19 of the 'VII, VIII, and UK XXX Corps' volume. Yeah, that looks pretty bad. It almost looks like he has confused the company structure within each battalion as being the battalion structure within the regiment. But even that would still be wrong.

 

Edit: I view the Osprey books in much the same way I view Wikipedia. They're a great starting point, but not terribly reliable or balanced, and the deeper you delve into something they more likely they are are to leave you scratching your head. But, on the upside, they provide a quick and easy income stream for the authors, so they can continue working on other deeper stuff.

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by JonS

[Half-Track Goner]

You're welcome. I've just started another book last night by Will Cavanaugh that you may be interested in also: The Battle East of Elsenborn and the Twin Vilages

J.C. Doherty lists this book as one of his sources. It has some well made maps(much better than Doherty's book) and has some great aerial photos of the different battle areas.

Cheers, Pak. I'll check it out. 

I assumed Doherty made some of those maps himself. Kind of endearing, to be honest.

Looking forward to seeing how CMFB treats the twin villages. Quite the brawl. 

[Pak40]

 

Is it possible the extra two were attachments?

Edit 2: Oh, I see what you mean now. Page 19 of the 'VII, VIII, and UK XXX Corps' volume. Yeah, that looks pretty bad. It almost looks like he has confused the company structure within each battalion as being the battalion structure within the regiment. But even that would still be wrong.

 

Edit: I view the Osprey books in much the same way I view Wikipedia. They're a great starting point, but not terribly reliable or balanced, and the deeper you delve into something they more likely they are are to leave you scratching your head. But, on the upside, they provide a quick and easy income stream for the authors, so they can continue working on other deeper stuff.

 

Yes, Pg 19 shows 12 armored battalions in two regiments for the 2nd Armored Division. He repeats the error on pg 21 with the 3rd Armored Division.

Yet on pg 11 he correctly lists the correct number of armored battalions that a "Heavy" armored division has.

Another example of an error is on pg. 59 for the 106th ID. The 820th AT battalion is shown with a cavalry symbol.

There are other minor errors in some of the other volumes too. Still, it's a good reference to have.

 

 

[BletchleyGeek]

Well written and I agree with the points you make. Its true that mr bergström holds a very high admiration for the FJ units in the 7. Army and most of all the 5.Fallschirmjäger-Division. He states that the 7.Army accomplished most of all German higher command units given the scope of their operations and the small resources at their disposal. I have read two of George M. Nipe´s `books (Blood, Steel, Myth And Decision in the Ukraine) and see the familiarities you mentions to the Ardennes how Waffen-SS was often unimaginative lead on the higher echelons although how competent officers and NCOs on lower levels sometimes had the ability to correct these with superior tactics or manoeuvres (Not Peiper then of course ).

I do think that Bergström mentions that the 17th AB and 11th AD were green, over reliant on artillery and air support and fought in pro-defence-positions but as you said maybe not enough. And this tends to create a negative US-perspective (missed US oppertunites, uncompetent commanders, etc) while the German misstakes are maybe more blaimed on the the allied air attacks and lack of supplies and gets a more neutral description.

 

Thanks for the discussion Big Boss, I see that our bookshelves do intersect in interesting ways.

 

I totally agree wrt the impact of air operations at the operational level. It is also something very valuable about Bergström's book: his analysis of the fight in the air, hardly discussed in any depth or  elsewhere. 

 

Did you read it in Swedish, right? I wasn't very happy with the editorial work on the English Kindle version... 

[Big Boss]

Thanks to you too BletchyGeek, and yes it’s clearly where Mr. Bergström has his background (Luftwaffe in particular and air warfare in general). This sometimes leads to the author to overemphasize the importance of their favorite “subject” is the same with those who writs exclusively about say the Special Forces or the importance of the breaking of the Enigma etc.

Yes, I read it in original Swedish and cannot comment on the quality of the translated editions.

[MikeyD]

I just pulled down my old 2004 copy of Harry Yeide's "The Tank Killers", a history of the US tank destroyer force in WWII. Applicable chapters would be 8, called "The battle for the border" and chapter 9 called " The Battle of the Bulge", which tells the story from a tank destroyer force perspective. The small unit action anecdotes are gleaned, it seems, from unit histories. They have a 'CM gameplay' quality to them that the weightier historical tomes lack. The book could be classed among the sorts of history book your uncle gets for Christmas. 

[Barkhorn1x]

Surprised no one list "Hitler's Last Gamble: The Battle of the Bulge, Dec 1944-Jan 1945" by Trevor Dupuy.  Despite its "pulpy" title it is a super detailed account that approaches the subject matter from an operational level systems perspective.  It includes many maps and 130+ page appendixes on the TO&Es and doctrines of the armies involved.  It is a bit dry and perhaps overly detailed at times.  I view it as a good companion to "A Time for Trumpets" as they compliment each other due to their different approaches to the subject matter.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Last-Gamble-December-1944-January/dp/0060166274/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452955771&sr=8-2&keywords=Hitlers+last+gamble

[Barkhorn1x]

...and there is a new book by Antony Beevor with a very similar title: "Ardennes 1944: Hitler's Last Gamble".  Don't have much info on this boo as it was published in Dec.  Here is a review from the New York Times Book Review.  Be warned as it shows the NYTs pet obsessions; an emphasis on war crimes, the common man and a refusal to recognize heroism from straight white males. (One wonders how differently they would view WWII if Eisenhower was a black trannie.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/books/review/antony-beevors-ardennes-1944.html?WT.mc_id=2016-KWP-AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK&kwp_0=85380&kwp_4=452772&kwp_1=254596&_r=1

http://www.amazon.com/Ardennes-1944-Hitlers-21-May-2015-Hardcover/dp/B011T6NFSW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1452955771&sr=8-4&keywords=Hitlers+last+gamble

[akd]

 

1st, 2nd, and 3rd were all Heavy.

1st fought only in the Med (North Africa, Italy), and converted to light scales before it went to Italy in late 1943.

 

Not until after the liberation of Rome actually. /nitpickoff

 

Edit: I view the Osprey books in much the same way I view Wikipedia. They're a great starting point, but not terribly reliable or balanced, and the deeper you delve into something they more likely they are are to leave you scratching your head. But, on the upside, they provide a quick and easy income stream for the authors, so they can continue working on other deeper stuff.

I'm sure there are some aspects of their process that tend to result in more error and inconsistency, but some titles are excellent, e.g. John Sayen's two volumes on the US Infantry Division are the best single source I've found on that topic, at least in regards to TO&E.

Edited January 17, 2016 by akd

[JonS]

Not until after the liberation of Rome actually. /nitpickoff

Thanks. I often forget the sequence of events for US forces in the Med. For some reason I thought the 1st switched org at some point during their anabasis around north-west Africa after the Axis surrender in Tunis.

[Michael Emrys]

Thanks. I often forget the sequence of events for US forces in the Med. For some reason I thought the 1st switched org at some point during their anabasis around north-west Africa after the Axis surrender in Tunis.

That's always what I thought as well. Appreciate the correction, akd.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

...and there is a new book by Antony Beevor with a very similar title: "Ardennes 1944: Hitler's Last Gamble".  Don't have much info on this boo as it was published in Dec.  Here is a review from the New York Times Book Review.  Be warned as it shows the NYTs pet obsessions; an emphasis on war crimes, the common man and a refusal to recognize heroism from straight white males. (One wonders how differently they would view WWII if Eisenhower was a black trannie.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/books/review/antony-beevors-ardennes-1944.html?WT.mc_id=2016-KWP-AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK&kwp_0=85380&kwp_4=452772&kwp_1=254596&_r=1

http://www.amazon.com/Ardennes-1944-Hitlers-21-May-2015-Hardcover/dp/B011T6NFSW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1452955771&sr=8-4&keywords=Hitlers+last+gamble

Please keep in mind that this is not a place to express politically grounded opinions, because inevitably someone will rise to the bait and we've got ourselves a totally unnecessary mess on our hands.  Or at the very least a moderator being called in to make sure there isn't one.

Steve

[Barkhorn1x]

OK boss.  No offense intended.

[Battlefront.com]

I figured as much which is why you didn't get bad brownie points added to your account

Thanks!

Steve