I have read that one of the chronological first goal of the offensive in Hungaria was to secure (or retake) the very last oifields in German sphere of influence (at Nagibayom or something like this - it's located south of Lake Balaton) that were located at the front line where operations had stopped during winter 44-45.

Yes, there were even troops that were dedicated to the protection of the oil fields and not get anywhere else but to stay next to the oil fields. Hitler also believed in getting back to Ploesti but considering the enemy forces facing the attack these were nothing but dreams.

The Germans were planning to get to Budapest/Ploesti, the Soviet Generals meantime, had created the defence in order to take the blow, and actually like at Kursk, the Soviet planners were anxiously waiting for the second phase when the huge army would be unleashed to conquer Wien etc.

__________________

The Ardennes offensive was Hitler's way of asking the western Allies

''Who would you rather see on the Rhine? Germans or the Soviets?''

That's why he depleted the armies in the east of men and material.

''Either sue for peace, or I'll allow the Soviets to reach the Rhine''.


That's what I think.

__________________
Unseren gefallenen und ermordeten kameraden in Treue.

Germany might survive or take Britain down with her.

The reason for new documentaries recently(and books) is the release of more Secrecy Act Records including Churchill's and Eisenhower's own assessments, thoughts, expectations and contingency plans.

It seems these new records show that both Eisenhower and Churchill believed that had the Germans achieved their objectives and held Antwerp, that Hitler was more willing to gamble taking Britain down with him, than Churchill(even Eisenhower) were willing to sacrifice Britain and her Empire/Commonwealth to take down Hitler.

The both knew that if Churchill agreed to risk sacrificing the Royal Army to take Hitler down, it would also take down Britain and the Empire. No gov't would survie another hundred-fold Dieppe. Britain would probably pull out of the war as soon as Germany surrendered.

Losing that Army Group would lose Britain its remaining status at the Victory Table. Canada(Dieppe was bad enough) would probably pull out of the war even lose support for the Royal ties. The colonies would see Britain sapped of military strength and influence and pull out 5-30 years early.

It all came down to one crazy principle.

Hitler would be more willing to sacrifice his Western Army even the war to get revenge on Britain, taking her down with him,
than Churchill was willing to sacrifice Britain and her Commonwealth and Empire to see Hitler fall.

And don't tell me Hitler wasn't that crazy.

Everyone, including the Germans, thought that if Hitler had anything left, he'd have thrown it at the Russians, not the 'Anglo-Saxons'.

That may be true but Hitler was practically fighting for his country´s life by the time so hard to say how much HE truly just wanted to crush the British Empire by "Wacht am Rhein", you remember that Hitler in 1939 was sure that war alone would bring the Empire down.

Also Roosevelt was himself very interested in giving independence to many nations, especially India, which did bring alot of friction between FDR and Winston.

So the end result seemed inevitable although Churchill´s task was to save the Empire.

Thanx for the post, Balderdasher. Can you give sources to your postings or net sites?

__________________

Tiny nit-pick here ( ) - it's the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force...but it's never been the Royal Army.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Thanks Petri.

Poles and Eastern Europeans would disagree with your assessment of FDR's 'interest' in independent states.

The US didn't declare war on Hitler over Polish sovereignty, nor were they fighting for European democracies.
FDR even supported Vichy candidates over Free French(as any Frenchman will tell you).
FDR left Truman(who viewed Stalin very differently) with American guarantees of Soviet domination over previously democratic states.
American policy in regards to Europe was not as altruistic as Britain's, start to finish.

Yet though Churchill argued that the whole reason for war with Hitler in the first place was Polish sovereignty, he also insisted that his first duty was the preservation of the Empire. He was even against Indian Independence. He even made trips to Canada in fear their support was waning. Quebec itself refused to volunteer as they had for even the First World War and since Dieppe and Hong Kong, Canada was not happy.

I stand by my worry that if Churchill had to decide between a stronger post-war British Empire...
and a weaker collapsing Empire given credit in history books for taking Hitler down with it,
Churchill would choose King and Empire over finishing off Hitler himself.
Lord Halifax was already pressuring for the recinding of 'unconditional surrender' demands, saying that it took away the motive and support of the German Underground to remove Hitler and the Nazis.

Sources.
'Liddel Hart's History of the Second World War.'
"Total War" 'The Causes and Courses of the Second World War."
Calvocoressi, Wint, Pritchard
"The Battle of the Bulge" MacDonald
*however, those, to my recollection only infer that had the plan succeeded it could have, according to whom?, forced a separate peace in the west. But of course those historians can't quote from biographies and files only released after those publications.

As for Battle of the Bulge/ Ardennes ...I have on hand:

"Secrets of WWII": "Secrets of the Battle of the Bulge"
Time Life Video
BBC WorldWide.

"The Secret War": "The Battle of the Bulge"
Time Warner? Video
or Turner Life?(it was only in vhs and its packed away somewhere)

"The Century of Warfare" Vol IV
Normandy to the Rhine
The End in Europe
Vol VI
Iron Curtain

"The Second World War"
Classic Pictures UK
"The Battle for the West Wall" Vol XVIII

Military Blunders of WWII...Macksay
and
Military Intelligence and Cover-Ups of WWII...Hughs-Wilson

How Hitler Could Have Won World War II...Alexander.

I believe, from what I can grab in the library here.

But be careful. There is alot of revisionist nonsense being printed/filmed too.
I tend to trust 'official biographies', especially those that leave themselves open to lawsuits if they lie. Not necessarily those done by family friends or colleagues, but from various sources and interviews.
I've found that BBC, The History Channel, Science and Discovery and even Biography from A&E(PBS) tend to avoid the cherry-picking revisionists. Especially if it is a British series that takes a little wind of the sales of its own people.

I even had a Russian friend come in to translate interviews of Zhukov for instance to make sure the subtitles were right when a new dvd released had him admitting they could have lost the Battle for Kursk. I'm pretty sure that wasn't in Soviet movie theatres before now. Some fascinating stuff coming to light. The problem is, as you infer, who to believe.

The world is tired of our 'without a doubt' 'proven beyond a shadow of a doubt' 'the numbers don't lie' 'we have witnesses' 'SLAM DUNK' on Weapons of Mass Destruction and divert pressure from Bin Laden because we've proved Saddam was behind 9/11.
The world doesn't believe us anymore.

To be fair, unlike the American media, I do believe I recall the BBC and some British/European being more sceptical of these 'Slam Dunks'.

ps... if you know of any more, especially new stuff from new released files, please let me know ok?

We must remember though that FDR was a sick man, with the high blood pressure definitely causing problems with thinking etc. He did note at one point in 1944 that Stalin was not keeping his promises, so if FDR had been in better health it is hard to say what actions he would have taken, then again he might have settled for the same kind of solution we got in the end. It is a fact that the Us and Europe are quite far away from each other, "like" Czechoslovakia was from western Europe in 1938....

__________________

That's kind of interesting. I wonder "how". Any more info on this, Balderdash?

Yeah I know, I'm lazy so instead of always typing British and Canadians or British and Australians,
I just type 'Royal' since they are all His/Her Royal something anyways.
Even today our oath is to the crown, and everyone I know serving today are just fine with it.

Tough call regarding Harry.
But even in Canada I know my colleagues feel alot better 'for King and Country' when the kings serve and take risk too.
I choke when I see American TV criticise him or the crown for not forcing the issue to front lines like is dad and uncle.
Talk about hypocrisy.

Canadian divisions were fighting the SS since Normany and tied down taking on the most defensible positions like the Scheldt ever since. Possibly toughest jobs since the landings. All the Cdn divs would've been cut off out of supply up with the rest of the Brits. Germans garrisons still held ports even when cut off with no hope of relief.

So, yup, sorry, just laze me typing Royal for all crown units.
Either that or just always call Canucks and Aussies and Kiwis Brits.

The battle of the bulge was "too little, too late" for the German war effort.

Again mate, this thread is almost over a year old, how about instead of one line posts, wwhy not come up with something new to add to the post to make us come back to it?

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

I think this procedure keeps the forum's old threads alive. Also it has a pleasantly good effect on the post count of some people.

__________________
Bah!

Of coure Za, I do agree, but I don't think that a one liner opinion is anything for us to come back to, and delcare the thread alive again, thats all.

Thats why I asked for a better opinon based on facts and that.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

I don't know how your Australian law works, but over here if you want to file for an appeal you have to present new witnesses or evidence, otherwise your case will be considered futile and therefore uselees to the pursuit of justice. But you never know, maybe the judge will be in a ggod mood and allow you to increase you post count. More tea Vicar?

__________________
Bah!

I do believe that it works along similar lines, which in the case of this forum, my point. Not just one liners.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget