Unbelievable. I just had to turn off the military channel.. Watching the Battle of the Bulge, I was amazed at the inaccuracy ortrayed. While the same cigarett smoking, arrogant actor kept appearing in different locations with his Panzerfaust, the ultimate was hearing Pattons 4th Army referred to over and over again as the liberators of Bastogne. Even the dumbest school kid that knows anything about WWII, knows that the fantastic army Patton comanded was the 3RD Army, not the 4th. While one of the untis involved in the liberation was the 4th Armord Division, to continually refer to Patton's 4th Army puts into question the credability of everything else contained in the program......Who could ever be so stupid as to let something like this on the air?

yea ive lost faith in the military channel, its a proaganda channel that does not fact check probaly getts most info from wikipedia and most of the work is probaly done by clueless interns who no noting about Militayr in gernal

i was talking to a friend who watched the same show, i couldn't believe all the errors he made, the military channel made it seem that the Germans were well equipped, experienced troops, outflanking the allies, where in reality the German VTG divisions won mostly because of numbers and surprise

Has anyone contacted the Military Channel regarding the errors? I think they should be notified so they can take the film back to the editing room.

the military channel had its facts rigt the fourth armored divison was part of pattons third army, patton also had the command of the 94th infantry division

Wrong end of the telescope.

Instead of noting factual errors in labels for known formations, why not ask the real question?

Why?

Why would the Nazis, having lost their last Greenland Ice Station /long/ before (thus having no accurate weather prediction capabilities), take a bunch of rocks in a sock and swing them at the teeth of the 'smiling nice' (since September when they took Aachen) Allies?

Why, after all the exploitation of the Enigma system did they 'suddenly' wise up and secure their comms?

Even if Untenddenburren Wacht am Rhein or literally 'Operation _Watch_ On The Rhein' succeeded wildly beyond their expectations- gaining bridges that engineers didn't blow up in their faces, finding fuel dumps not long since put to the torch etc., the armored drive back into Belgium was doomed to failure as soon as artillery and air came back online and with the Russians close to Germany proper, once extended, there was no way that the Germans could separate and disengage to turn their armor back East where it was really needed and could be useful.

If nothing else, they'd just blown their last reserves of gas to the extent that they could not dominantly maneuver even at Seelowe which was ripe for counterattack.

Given you put the Americans some 8-12 weeks behind schedule (doubling what Hurtgen did) in leaping the Rhine and crossing into the open North German Plain, WHY would you want to delay them to the point where they could /lose the race to the Capital/ to the Russians whom you had been acting with incredible cruelty to for the last 3 years?

That is the real question and despite all the madman accusations you hear about latewar Hitler with his syphilis and Parkinsons, the fact remains that he was still surrounded by OKW staff who could have easily said 'no', (logistically if not fatally), if he had insisted on a nutcase plan.

Unfortunately, the real answer is most probably that the Germans were so close to having atomic arms that they thought that if they could buy themselves that respite, they could actually win a standoff with the Russians at the border and the hold the Americans to Aachen and the Ruhr pocket.

The laughable part of this is that 'the proof' is inherent to another question regarding Patton's own madcap rush across lower Germany to Pilsen and the Thuringia Waalde. He could have had Berlin. His objective was far beyond the agreed on lines of contact and deep into the Russian Occupation Zone.

Yet he was ordered to Silesia to secure the ANR, even though no notation for such a 'fortified redoubt' as a line of retreat exists on any SHAEF recce photos of the time.

Why?

Where is the 'other half' of the 3,600 odd tons of combined Sudetan and captured Western European Uranium that the Nazis had stockpiled?

Why did Groves suddenly switch from whining about not having enough by half 'until early 1946' even as the gas diffusion facility finally came online to having more than sufficient for a Uranium AND a Plutonium bomb (and possibly one other)?

Why did Oppenheimer say that the gun design bomb was 'of German Provenance' and in fact the U.S. never test the design before dropping it?

Why did Hitler make a madcap rush in September 1944 to the Army proving grounds in SE Germany when he had been almost a recluse after the Valkyrie attack in July?

Why do the Swedes and the British, in their period public newspapers, document an EMP like event, disabling telecomms, across the Baltic basin in October 1944?

The Ardennes campaign was only the beginning of the endgame. But it's significance is probably more important than will ever be acknowledged.

It is most likely that the Germans, who pioneered the three principle methods of refining Uranium to Yellow Cake (60-70% purity) levels discovered a further means for 'photochemically' refining it to a midgrade material (90-94%) which could be weaponized without resort to the prolonged metallicization of a 96-98% density U235 isotope trigger.

And if that method were known today, half the planet would be 'nuclear club' members, overnight.

For another 80-100,000 dead, the Russians got Berlin. We got dominant security over nuclear weapons.

That is all that really counts about The Battle Of The Bulge. It cost the Germans everything. It cost us 50 years of holding hands with the Russians in NATO/WARPAC conditioned Europe. It saved the world from itself.

And you will never hear it on the Military Channel.


KPl.

Okie Dokie. Spend a lot of time surfing conspiracy theory and revisionist web sites do you? What I notice on these sites is that they ask a lot of questions which are meaningless except to set up their own answers, then they provide those answers but never supply anything of substance to back them up.

Google 'Black Reich'. Last I checked, it's still available as a .pdf file.

If you then want to do a point by point disproof, I will listen to your rhetoric and compare it to the authors.

His rationale fits most of WWII's endgame a lot more cleanly than what we've been told.

I draw the line at flying saucers and the like but I believe that most of what we know about the nuclear 'creationist' debate is itself flawed and indeed mythical, given what we know of incremental and parallel evolutionary trends in like environments. An environment which it must be added, German dominanted throughout the early 20th century.

The reason for the lie is most likely because the weapons are simply too easy to develop for the reality to be seen as it stands.

Indeed, I think this is a large part of why the Eisenhower 'nuclear sharing arrangement' was so highly proliferated in the early 50s.

Because if you followed the official dogma, of 'how to make a nuke' (read like a certain Monty Python skit involving Holy Hand Grenades), you either will get nowhere fast.

Or be highly trackable in your dependence on controlled materials/process access.

Whereas if you do it the Nazi way, you get battlefield/terrorist threshold, atomic yields (with or without radioisotopes) on a 'fizzle is a fast enough burn' suitcase level within a very short period of time.


KPl.

I couldn't find "Black Reich" but did find "Reich of the Black Sun" by a Joseph Farrell. It's not worth your request for a line-by-line debunking. He follows the usual conspiracy theorist methods. He uses questions to create doubt and to set up his own conclusions as factual when he presents nothing substantial to back them up. He takes what are, at best, controversial claims and asserts them to be fact without any basis for doing so. For example no one really knows whether or not the Germans actually flew their Junkers 390 to within 20 miles of NYC in 1945. That is an unconfirmed claim he presents as fact then embellishes it with the assertion that the Germans flew many such missions, another claim for which there is no support. In another example, he states as fact the claim that Japan detonated an atomic bomb near Hungnam, Korea in August 1945. The basis for this story is apparently from a post-war US intelligence report wherein a single Japanese officer claims to have witnessed such a bomb detonated aboard an unmanned ship. There is no evidence to back this up. Both Japan and Germany had nuclear programs but there is no evidence that either succeeded in producing a bomb. Detonating such a device would have left ample evidence that would still remain to this day. A nuclear explosion would have been highly visible for a great distance producing a great number of witnesses, yet, there are very few who make such claims. This would certainly be the case if such a bomb had been detonated in Thuringia or Ruga. He also asserts that HE knows what people were thinking or feeling or understands their motives or lack thereof when he could not possibly know. And so on and so on. As usual, fantasy is mixed into historical fact to create a pseudo-history of little worth. Of course, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the Battle of the Bulge, which was the actual topic here.

hi, hate to hijack but that has always been the problem with tv specials but then again, that's always been the problem with history books themselves. why the discovery channel would have an agenda to push a specific history is beyond me, maybe someone was just under pressure to have the special done on time so his research was rushed...-Fishfool @ [url=http://thereeftank.com]The Reef Tank[/url]