Yesterday in class

[Wilhelm Schlegal]

I was doing my work, then this girl asked the teacher if she could help her with her WWII paper. The teacher didn't know much about WWII, so I asked the girl what she needed help with. She asked me what I thought was a more important battle. The choices she gave me were D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge. I had to think about it for a little bit, then told her D-Day, because if there was no D-Day, there was no Bulge. Besides, if there was no D-Day, would the Allies have won the war? What's everyone's opinion?

[S.SGT David Bevan]

I think that D-Day was probably the most important Operation of the War. It also included the entire commonwhealth while I tihnk the Bulge only included the Americans and Germans. Also i'm not too sure but I think the Germans were basically on the run by the time of the battle of the Bullge as they had just lost France.

[laukkenan]

No, by the time the Battle of the Bulge had started the Germans had regrouped. The Bulge was their major counter-attack that almost succeeded. The Germans were only retreating in Holland, where they decided to make a defense at Arnhem. So, the Germans were fully prepared for the Bulge.

[Wilhelm Schlegal]

Well even if the Germans won the Bulge, I doubt they would have won the war. The Allied Bombers would have continued to pummel their war production factories, and the Germans were already retreating from the Russians...

[∬: Erhard Strumfelder]

I'm actually not too sure. I'm going for the Bulge on this one slightly, mainly because it was Hitler's last great offensive. Sure D-Day was important, but Germany was already fighting and losing on two fronts in the first place, and it was obvious that an invasion in northern France would just apply more pressure.

However, with the Bulge, if Hitler had reached the Channel ports, he could have squeezed the Allies supply lines while increasing his own. He could then have then returned to trench warfare and held the Allies up while he rearmed and ground both sides down. If he could cause a stale mate and tackle the east and south, he could have forced a ceasefire with the Allies, while he turned his attention to the Soviets.

So, D-Day was an assured victory, while the Bulge had very high stakes indeed, and could have really changed the course of the war.

[Heiko Alkema]

D-Day indeed, The Germans had no hope of victory after that.

By December of 1944 (The Bulge) the Soviets had already swept through the Balkans, and made it halfway through Poland, while the Western Allies had taken back most of France and Italy, almost returning to Pre-War boundaries. Even with the Western Allies out of the way, the Soviets were completely geared up for war and the sheer weight of Soviet industrial- and man-power would have been enough to crush Germany in late '45/ early '46.

D-Day opened the back door for the Western Allies while the Soviets were kicking down the front, ensuring a three-front war that Germany had no chance of winning. The Bulge just shortened the war by eating up already scarce resources.

[rspeirs]

Both were major battles, no doubt about it. If it wasn't for D-Day, who knows how Hitler's plan would have unfolded. However, in his memoirs, Major Dick Winters states that he thought that the toughest, most crucial campaign of WWII was Bastogne. The Germans did indeed almost win. The Germans had General Tony McAughlin's men surrounded by Bastogne and would shell them constantly. If it wasn't for Patton and Abram's help, the Bulge might have been a German victory. If Hitler would have one, who knows what could have happen.

I do however, believe that Hitler had lost the war upon invading Russia.

[Scott Evans]

Battle of Britain because if it were not for that there would not have been anywhere to STAGE D-Day... And even that is not clear cut.

Oh, was the question only to be answered between D-Day and the Bulge? Well, I like the Bulge cause it had the Brits coming in to save the Americans rear end, Monty specifically.

But without D-Day at all we would have seen all of Europe save Italy under Communist rule and that would have been just as bad.

I thought the General was McAuliffe at Bastogne, wasn't it? Taylor was on break or something.

[Edward"Butcher"McMillan]

D-Day

I've deleted the remainder of my post as I screwed my facts up royaly

-JT

[Scott Evans]

I did not think the 101st retreated either, they had nowhere to go.


In any case I have been working through "The Second World War" and I was quite pleased when the 3ID was mentioned fighting at Anzio.

[deutschlandschutze]

I'm going to have to go with the Bulge here. D-Day was important, as has already been mentioned. However, it was icing on the cake, as the Americans advanced up the boot of Italy and the Russians pounded in the east. The reason the Bulge was important is because if they had succeeded (the Germans), then they would have gained massive amounts of resources for themselves. After they pushed the Allies out of Europe that way, they would know what to expect in the way of sea bourne invasions. Plus, they would have gained alot more supplies to wage war in the south and east. Not to mention, Hitler may have been able to effect a peave treaty with Britain and America. Both were tired of the war and not too particularly fond of Russia. If Hitler had succeeded in kicking them out, and making them pay dearly for the attempt, it may have been enough to gain a peace treaty. With a peace treaty in place, all German supplies and men could go to hold the Russians intstead of the Allies in the north and south. It is quite probable that they would have fended off the Bolsheviks by themselves. From there they may have achieved peace with Russia, or fought them back to their own country. It was because of the wasted resources thay they fell so quickly after the Bulge.

The key mistake of the Bulge for the Germans was that when they had Bastogne surrounded, they did not exploit it. They would only attack on one side at a time so that the Americans could rush troops to whatever side was coming under attack. If the Germans had ordered an all out attack from all sides, the Americans couldn't have hoped to hold.

[deutschlandschutze]

Sorry for double post, but JT there are several american UNITS that did not retreat. As for an entire division it was the 101st, however there were some scout battalions of an armoured division, and some other battalion sized units from other divisions that fought with distinction!

[Scott Evans]

Mar 11, 2009 1:41:54 GMT @deutschlandschutze said:

as the Americans advanced up the boot of Italy

Ahem.

Yes, Ike was the top guy at the start, but he was replaced by Wilson, a Brit. The British 8th Army and the American 5th were the two armies that fought up Italy commanded overall by Alexander, a Brit. The British 8th, under Montgomery to start then Leese and finally another Brit who I cannot recall, being entirely British Empire save a few Poles.

The 5th Army, under Clark, an American was a mix of US and other Commonwealth and allied troops, the 8th Army was larger than this the entire time also.

The British at every stage had more troops in the Mediterranean and Italy so I daresay its not an American drive up Italy.

[deutschlandschutze]

Apologies mate! Was typing fast, I should have said Allied not American.

Also when I say it was a waste of German supply and materials I mean men as well, they lost around 200,000 men in the offensive!

[laukkenan]

I thought the General was McAuliffe at Bastogne, wasn't it? Taylor was on break or something.

Terry, you are correct, because Major General Taylor was at a wedding. Remember in BoB where the Americans take the Brits across the river with British Col. Well Taylor was at that British Colonel's wedding during the Bastogne Offensive. And the 101st was not the only unit there. There as an Anti-Tank Battalion and other units. The 101st was just the largest there.