Sixty years ago today began what came to be called the Battle of the Bulge. It was Hitler's last, desperate attempt to throw the invaders back across the Channel, or to get them to sue for peace, or at the least, to buy time until he could reconstitute his forces. Initially successful, the battle lasted six weeks, through Christmas and most of January, 1945. When it ended, the Allies had broken the back of the German western front, and all but Hitler himself knew that the war had been lost, though it took another three months to finally occupy Germany.

It never ceases to amaze me that the Allies won after the Battle of the Bulge.

After all, supposedly we were winning the war, yet:

--The Germans were able to launch not one but two major offensives (Operation Whirlwind, iirc, began two weeks later, further south near Strasbourg).

--The worst defeat of US arms in Europe occurred during the Battle of the Bulge (two regiments of the 106th were surrounded and forced to surrender).

--German forces were able to launch a surprise attack involving some 30 divisions, clearly an intelligence failure.

--German soldiers who were captured were executed (these were saboteurs, but still, they were human beings, after all). And after Malmedy, US forces were not especially willing to take prisoners, esp. of SS troops.

--The Germans were fighting to defend their homeland, which was simply over the border (and in parts of Alsace and Lorraine, they had been in charge in living memory, after all).

Given the coverage of Tet (military failure of a surprise attack) or 9-11, it's a wonder that there weren't cries for the heads of Patton and Bradley, Monty and Ike, if not the outright resignations of Churchill and FDR. And most amazingly, despite thousands of casualties, no one seemed to wonder whether the war was still winnable or not.

Dean, stop stealing my idea for tomorrow's "Routers" story... ;-)

The Ardennes Offensive was doomed from the start. Terrific tactical surprise merely resulted in delaying the inevitable. America'a factories were making Shermans (and Russian their T-34s and bigger versions) far faster than the Germans could keep pace.

Hitler's best remaining troops were squandered in a megalomaniac idea that he could recapture Antwerp. Those forces could have been better employed slowing the Soviets to allow the Western allies to occupy more of Germany.

Nonetheless, any comparison between our defeat of Hitler and the current war on bin Laden is simply daft.

Our objective in WW2 was to defeat the German people. ALL OF THEM and not just the lunatic Nazi fringe. Our objective in the War on Terror is to defeat the lunatic Islamo-fascist fringe without excessive damage to the more moderate strains within the Islamic world. VERY different that WW2.

But if we do indeed choose to conquer the whole region in imitation of 1945 Germany (as you intend to propose tomorrow, I presume) step #1 needs to be stop sending billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia.

It's like sending LendLease to Hitler. ;-)

= = =

PS - the Germans in the western zones were indeed grateful to the Yanks, Brits and even the French because unlike the Soviet region our forces did not burn and rape everything in sight.

Any gratefulness (among the Iraqi people) that we have earned from removing Saddam has already been spent, IMHO. From day #1 Sistani has said: "Thank you, America. Now leave."

Any gratefulness (among the Iraqi people) that we have earned from removing Saddam has already been spent, IMHO.

That opinion is appropriately humble.

From day #1 Sistani has said: "Thank you, America. Now leave."

From what alternate universe are you posting this, Bill?

1945 Germany worked because the Allies were openly and plainly a military occupation. There were no illusions about our being there to support a "democratically" elected government.

= = =

Why do I believe "they" are not grateful?

Very few Iraqis will fight for us, except the Kurds. (The Kurds by the way are VERY grateful to the United States. They almost have their own country, now.) Most of the rest of the Iraqi military and police run away whenever combat starts.

Sistani?

He has refused to meet with Coalition political leaders (Bremer in particular) from the very beginning. He wanted elections long before January 2005.

This comment:
"Any gratefulness (among the Iraqi people) that we have earned from removing Saddam has already been spent, IMHO."

Doesn't line up with this picture from this week on Instapundit:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041215/ids_photos_wl/r2051969441.jpg

Anecdotal stories about flowers, cheers, smiles and whatnot are findable. Even with the historical accounts of WWII, I don't think the 'welcomed with flowers' was without exception. Some of the cities were so flat that today three stones near the cornerstone of the church are remembered as "the only stones left standing one on another". I can't imagine a flower parade into such an area. Dresden, Kiel, several of the key points.... Flat.

> Our objective in WW2 was to defeat the German people. ALL OF THEM and not just the lunatic Nazi fringe.
> Our objective in the War on Terror is to defeat the lunatic Islamo-fascist fringe without excessive damage
> to the more moderate strains within the Islamic world. VERY different that WW2.

Really, Bill? You think we were out to defeat the anti-Nazi German underground???

Talk about daft.

If we had been "out to defeat the German people," we never would have given Germany *back* to the German people. At the very least, we would have implemented the Morgenthau Plan.

I see you are continuing to keep your post-election promise to lay off the constant partisan sniping.