What do you think?
Rate this book
The Battle of the Bulge: The Untold Story
The Battle of the Bulge, fought in the snows of the Ardennes forests in December 1944 and January 1945, was the greatest land battle waged by the US Army in the twentieth century. Official history remembers the victory as a solely American triumph, but Charles Whiting uncovers fresh new evidence to the contrary. For political reasons, no mention was ever made of the crucial British involvement in this battle: against a total news blackout, British XXX Corps suffered 2,500 casualties fighting a decisive action which halted the German drive to the river Meuse. The British role in the Battle of the Bulge simply does not exist on paper. 'The main reason for adopting a low key in referring to the British contribution was political,' said Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff. Using eyewitness accounts from British, American and German soldiers and Belgian civilians, Charles Whiting sets the record straight, telling the true story of the role the British played in this key battle, and the hard fighting and suffering they had to endure.
224 pages, Paperback
First published December 21, 1994
163 people are currently reading
107 people want to read
About the author
Charles Whiting
257 books52 followersCharles Whiting was a British writer and military historian and with some 350 books of fiction and non-fiction to his credit, under his own name and a variety of pseudonyms including Ian Harding, Duncan Harding, K.N. Kostov, John Kerrigan, Klaus Konrad, and Leo Kessler.
Born in the Bootham area of York, England, he was a pupil at the prestigious Nunthorpe Grammar School, leaving at the age of 16 to join the British Army by lying about his age. Keen to be in on the wartime action, Whiting was attached to the 52nd Reconnaissance Regiment and by the age of 18 saw duty as a sergeant in France, Holland, Belgium and Germany in the latter stages of World War II. While still a soldier, he observed conflicts between the highest-ranking British and American generals which he would write about extensively in later years.
After the war, he stayed on in Germany completing his A-levels via correspondence course and teaching English before being enrolled at Leeds University reading History and German Language. As an undergraduate he was afforded opportunities for study at several European universities and, after gaining his degree, would go on to become an assistant professor of history. Elsewhere, Whiting held a variety of jobs which included working as a translator for a German chemical factory and spells as a publicist, a correspondent for The Times and feature writer for such diverse magazines as International Review of Linguistics, Soldier and Playboy.
His first novel was written while still an undergraduate, was published in 1954 and by 1958 had been followed by three wartime thrillers. Between 1960 and 2007 Charles went on to write over 350 titles, including 70 non-fiction titles covering varied topics from the Nazi intelligence service to British Regiments during World War II.
One of his publishers, Easingwold-based Rupert Smith of GH Smith & Son said he was a quiet man and prolific writer.
"He's one of a band of forgotten authors because he sold millions of copies and still, up to his death was doing publishing deals.He was the kind of man who was very self-effacing, one of Britain's forgotten authors, still working at 80 years of age, with his nose down and kicking out books."
Charles Henry Whiting, author and military historian died on July 24 2007, leaving his wife and son.
Born in the Bootham area of York, England, he was a pupil at the prestigious Nunthorpe Grammar School, leaving at the age of 16 to join the British Army by lying about his age. Keen to be in on the wartime action, Whiting was attached to the 52nd Reconnaissance Regiment and by the age of 18 saw duty as a sergeant in France, Holland, Belgium and Germany in the latter stages of World War II. While still a soldier, he observed conflicts between the highest-ranking British and American generals which he would write about extensively in later years.
After the war, he stayed on in Germany completing his A-levels via correspondence course and teaching English before being enrolled at Leeds University reading History and German Language. As an undergraduate he was afforded opportunities for study at several European universities and, after gaining his degree, would go on to become an assistant professor of history. Elsewhere, Whiting held a variety of jobs which included working as a translator for a German chemical factory and spells as a publicist, a correspondent for The Times and feature writer for such diverse magazines as International Review of Linguistics, Soldier and Playboy.
His first novel was written while still an undergraduate, was published in 1954 and by 1958 had been followed by three wartime thrillers. Between 1960 and 2007 Charles went on to write over 350 titles, including 70 non-fiction titles covering varied topics from the Nazi intelligence service to British Regiments during World War II.
One of his publishers, Easingwold-based Rupert Smith of GH Smith & Son said he was a quiet man and prolific writer.
"He's one of a band of forgotten authors because he sold millions of copies and still, up to his death was doing publishing deals.He was the kind of man who was very self-effacing, one of Britain's forgotten authors, still working at 80 years of age, with his nose down and kicking out books."
Charles Henry Whiting, author and military historian died on July 24 2007, leaving his wife and son.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
August 6, 2023
True story of the Battle of the Bulge
The author presents a realistic picture of this battle. Hitler nearly pulled of a remarkable victory.
His main ally was the complacency of the American generals.
However the poor b infantry managed to stop him.
This book reports the deliberately downplayed but vital part played by British troops and that able but vain general Montgomery.
The need to please the American public led to a whitewash of their generals’ poor performance and inflation of such as Patton.
War is a confused mess and this book reports it accurately.
The author presents a realistic picture of this battle. Hitler nearly pulled of a remarkable victory.
His main ally was the complacency of the American generals.
However the poor b infantry managed to stop him.
This book reports the deliberately downplayed but vital part played by British troops and that able but vain general Montgomery.
The need to please the American public led to a whitewash of their generals’ poor performance and inflation of such as Patton.
War is a confused mess and this book reports it accurately.
September 12, 2023
Revealing
I did not know before I read this book that the British had anything other than a passing and almost negligible involvement in this battle apart from FM Montgomery's control of the flank. Like almost everyone else I believed the US essentially 'won' it by themselves with just a little bit of help from the aforementioned Field Marshal to help tidy up a few loose ends.
How wrong I and so many others have been! An object lesson in 'Fake News' before Trump was even born and perhaps a lesson for us all. I am shocked at the blatant hypocrisy and small mindedness of just about every US general involved especially Bradley who by all accounts was as dull as dishwater, and Eisenhower who hardly comes out of this with any credit.
You have to feel so sorry for Montgomery even though his political sensibilities approached zero as he opened his big mouth once too often and, sadly, never fully appreciated the effect his words would inevitably cause. He needed a script writer like just about every US general and merely the need to say this is a tragedy in itself.
I'm sure there will come a day when actions actually do speak louder than words.
Up till right now that's hardly ever been true.
I did not know before I read this book that the British had anything other than a passing and almost negligible involvement in this battle apart from FM Montgomery's control of the flank. Like almost everyone else I believed the US essentially 'won' it by themselves with just a little bit of help from the aforementioned Field Marshal to help tidy up a few loose ends.
How wrong I and so many others have been! An object lesson in 'Fake News' before Trump was even born and perhaps a lesson for us all. I am shocked at the blatant hypocrisy and small mindedness of just about every US general involved especially Bradley who by all accounts was as dull as dishwater, and Eisenhower who hardly comes out of this with any credit.
You have to feel so sorry for Montgomery even though his political sensibilities approached zero as he opened his big mouth once too often and, sadly, never fully appreciated the effect his words would inevitably cause. He needed a script writer like just about every US general and merely the need to say this is a tragedy in itself.
I'm sure there will come a day when actions actually do speak louder than words.
Up till right now that's hardly ever been true.
April 16, 2025
The involvement of British troops in the Ardennes Offensive is not well known. To most people the Ardennes Offensive was fought and won by American troops; after a disastrous initial fight, they gathered themselves and with Patton at the forefront, relieved Bastogne before pushing the German forces back. The involvement of Montgomery (and his command of the American formations on the north side of the ‘Bulge’) is known of – if only for his disastrous press conference on 7th January 1945. However, the fighting by XXX Corps is not well recorded.
Thus, there is a story to be told, and Whiting’s book goes a little way to doing that. He describes the positioning of XXX Corps forces to block a potential German push to the Meuse River and the bloody fighting they were involved in as they counterattacked the German thrust, alongside the two US armies placed under Montgomery’s command. The problem is that this British involvement, while described, is not really the main subject, but just another thread. This is less ‘Britain’s Untold Story’ as another story of the Ardennes Offensive with some weight given to the involvement of the British. It is, in essence, an opportunity missed.
There are several problems with the book, more generally. Whiting seems to like to dramatise events. Thus he tells the story of two German signallers, sent into a town held by the Americans (or ‘Amis’ as Whiting seems to delight in constantly calling them, being the nickname given by the Germans; we get it, we do not need constant reminding.) These two Landser are ‘concerned solely with their role in the great assault and whether they would survive the next twenty-four hours.’ Such feelings are distinctly possible, but there are no references to back up the story. Where does it come from? In fact, is it even true? The book is riddled with dialogue and personal thoughts; what are the sources? Are they simply conjecture? Whiting provides dramatic, novel-like detail such as his description of men dying with ‘arms flailing wildly’, but such imaginary theatre also gets him into trouble, for example, when he describes ‘Jabos’ (fighter-bombers) flying at tree top height before ‘descending slowly in circles’ when shot down! And then there are simply ‘odd’ comments such as his reference to ‘that peasant German curiosity that sees [Germans] crowding around terrible accidents on their lethal autobahns.’! Such writing, while descriptive, is surely the product of Whiting’s own imagination - and prejudices - but who knows? The lack of references in a book such as this, where there is something ‘new’ to be told, is curious. The chapter end notes generally provide extra ‘useful’ information, and the only publications referenced are his own books! The ‘Select Bibliography’ would best be described as ‘thin’: 19 books; 3 Regimental Histories (although one unit, the 1st Derbyshire Yeomanry, was in Italy at the time!); 3 British and 8 US Divisional Histories. There is not one primary source. How can this be a ‘story untold’ if Whiting has simply used previously published works?
The other problem, for me at least, is Whiting’s style. He cannot resist making snide, throwaway remarks. For example, he states that ‘British and American infantrymen […] were usually too lazy to [dig deep foxholes’. Some of this seems to be an attempt to portray the American generals as incompetent, a view he supports with his own personal judgements, comments which cannot be (and are not) substantiated. Certainly, the Americans refused to believe rumours of a possible German counter-attack and some were then paralysed for a period when it came; but the whole counter-offensive made no sense (a statement which can be applied to much of Hitler’s operational and strategic ‘brilliance’) and no senior Allied commander foretold it. However, to suggest as he does that ‘America’s generals had nearly lost the battle through complacency and overconfidence’ while ‘Montgomery […] had helped to save them’ and that the ‘’Tommies’ [….] died to save Eisenhower, Bradley and Middleton’s reputations’ is not only excessive but seems deliberately inflammatory. Some of Whiting’s comments are plain ‘odd’; for example,
Finally, Whiting is regularly plainly wrong. ‘Bomber’ Harris was not given the nickname ‘Butcher’ by post-war university students; in reality he was known as ‘Butch’ (ie, ‘forthright’) during his RAF service. Whiting also regurgitates the ‘Ronson’ myth as applied to Sherman tanks (again, historians can find no contemporary references to support what has effectively become a circular story.) He describes the 6-pounder anti-tank gun as ‘ineffectual’ and ‘no use against most enemy tanks’ whereas, in fact, the gun was effective against many German armoured fighting vehicles and, with the available Armour-Piercing Discarding Sabot ammunition, could pierce the frontal armour of a Tiger I tank at up to 900 metres – hardly ‘ineffectual’! He refers to the ‘recently raised Belgian SAS Regiment’ which, as the Belgian Independent Parachute Company (formed in 1942), had actually been absorbed into the SAS in February 1944. It was the 1st Fife and Forfar Yeomanry who fought in the Ardennes, not the 2nd. He refers ad nauseam to American GIs as ‘Doughs’, derived from ‘Doughboys’, a term which was used during the First World War but replaced by ‘GI’ by the 1940s. Finally, it seems unlikely that British veterans would ‘pause before the lines of immaculate white crosses’ given that crosses are not used in Commonwealth War Graves cemeteries!
Overall, rather than telling an ‘untold story, this book feels more like an opportunity to take cheap shots at the Americans in general, and their generals in particular. If Whiting had backed his thesis with good evidence, that would be fine, but he has not. Instead he seems to have attempted to tell a dramatic version of the Ardennes Offensive from the point of view of those involved, German, American and British, be they generals or private soldiers. As a consequence, he has delivered the same old story, but poorly (with a few details on British involvement), wrapped in ill-founded innuendo, cynicism and plain ignorance while ‘taking a pop’ at the Americans. If you can cope with the nonsense, this is a half-decent description of the battle (but there are better), but it is little more than that and I honestly cannot recommend it.
Thus, there is a story to be told, and Whiting’s book goes a little way to doing that. He describes the positioning of XXX Corps forces to block a potential German push to the Meuse River and the bloody fighting they were involved in as they counterattacked the German thrust, alongside the two US armies placed under Montgomery’s command. The problem is that this British involvement, while described, is not really the main subject, but just another thread. This is less ‘Britain’s Untold Story’ as another story of the Ardennes Offensive with some weight given to the involvement of the British. It is, in essence, an opportunity missed.
There are several problems with the book, more generally. Whiting seems to like to dramatise events. Thus he tells the story of two German signallers, sent into a town held by the Americans (or ‘Amis’ as Whiting seems to delight in constantly calling them, being the nickname given by the Germans; we get it, we do not need constant reminding.) These two Landser are ‘concerned solely with their role in the great assault and whether they would survive the next twenty-four hours.’ Such feelings are distinctly possible, but there are no references to back up the story. Where does it come from? In fact, is it even true? The book is riddled with dialogue and personal thoughts; what are the sources? Are they simply conjecture? Whiting provides dramatic, novel-like detail such as his description of men dying with ‘arms flailing wildly’, but such imaginary theatre also gets him into trouble, for example, when he describes ‘Jabos’ (fighter-bombers) flying at tree top height before ‘descending slowly in circles’ when shot down! And then there are simply ‘odd’ comments such as his reference to ‘that peasant German curiosity that sees [Germans] crowding around terrible accidents on their lethal autobahns.’! Such writing, while descriptive, is surely the product of Whiting’s own imagination - and prejudices - but who knows? The lack of references in a book such as this, where there is something ‘new’ to be told, is curious. The chapter end notes generally provide extra ‘useful’ information, and the only publications referenced are his own books! The ‘Select Bibliography’ would best be described as ‘thin’: 19 books; 3 Regimental Histories (although one unit, the 1st Derbyshire Yeomanry, was in Italy at the time!); 3 British and 8 US Divisional Histories. There is not one primary source. How can this be a ‘story untold’ if Whiting has simply used previously published works?
The other problem, for me at least, is Whiting’s style. He cannot resist making snide, throwaway remarks. For example, he states that ‘British and American infantrymen […] were usually too lazy to [dig deep foxholes’. Some of this seems to be an attempt to portray the American generals as incompetent, a view he supports with his own personal judgements, comments which cannot be (and are not) substantiated. Certainly, the Americans refused to believe rumours of a possible German counter-attack and some were then paralysed for a period when it came; but the whole counter-offensive made no sense (a statement which can be applied to much of Hitler’s operational and strategic ‘brilliance’) and no senior Allied commander foretold it. However, to suggest as he does that ‘America’s generals had nearly lost the battle through complacency and overconfidence’ while ‘Montgomery […] had helped to save them’ and that the ‘’Tommies’ [….] died to save Eisenhower, Bradley and Middleton’s reputations’ is not only excessive but seems deliberately inflammatory. Some of Whiting’s comments are plain ‘odd’; for example,
Finally, Whiting is regularly plainly wrong. ‘Bomber’ Harris was not given the nickname ‘Butcher’ by post-war university students; in reality he was known as ‘Butch’ (ie, ‘forthright’) during his RAF service. Whiting also regurgitates the ‘Ronson’ myth as applied to Sherman tanks (again, historians can find no contemporary references to support what has effectively become a circular story.) He describes the 6-pounder anti-tank gun as ‘ineffectual’ and ‘no use against most enemy tanks’ whereas, in fact, the gun was effective against many German armoured fighting vehicles and, with the available Armour-Piercing Discarding Sabot ammunition, could pierce the frontal armour of a Tiger I tank at up to 900 metres – hardly ‘ineffectual’! He refers to the ‘recently raised Belgian SAS Regiment’ which, as the Belgian Independent Parachute Company (formed in 1942), had actually been absorbed into the SAS in February 1944. It was the 1st Fife and Forfar Yeomanry who fought in the Ardennes, not the 2nd. He refers ad nauseam to American GIs as ‘Doughs’, derived from ‘Doughboys’, a term which was used during the First World War but replaced by ‘GI’ by the 1940s. Finally, it seems unlikely that British veterans would ‘pause before the lines of immaculate white crosses’ given that crosses are not used in Commonwealth War Graves cemeteries!
Overall, rather than telling an ‘untold story, this book feels more like an opportunity to take cheap shots at the Americans in general, and their generals in particular. If Whiting had backed his thesis with good evidence, that would be fine, but he has not. Instead he seems to have attempted to tell a dramatic version of the Ardennes Offensive from the point of view of those involved, German, American and British, be they generals or private soldiers. As a consequence, he has delivered the same old story, but poorly (with a few details on British involvement), wrapped in ill-founded innuendo, cynicism and plain ignorance while ‘taking a pop’ at the Americans. If you can cope with the nonsense, this is a half-decent description of the battle (but there are better), but it is little more than that and I honestly cannot recommend it.
September 9, 2023
A very good review of what happened north of Patton... no real bias other than that which is to be understood by the bias of American (South side) historians.. Told the story of the Brits who fought and died in the Ardennes battle. Slammed and praised all equally without regard for those niceties that we prefer hidden so as not to humanise our heroes.
A good read for historical buffs who want a level view of the tale.
A good read for historical buffs who want a level view of the tale.
July 14, 2013
Thoroughly enjoyed this book which brings to life the true struggle of the defence held by General Montgomery against the ferocious might of Hitler's last offensive. In a spiteful throw of the dice Hitler tried to outbid Ike's unconditional surrender gambit. If only the western powers could be convinced to halt their attack at Germany's border, then perhaps a German defence against the Red Army might become a reality. The US Army believed it had already won the war, and found itself in a tricky spot where the only functional allied command capable of a response was Monty's 30 Corps.
September 24, 2023
American as I am I take offense
Many times in the book Americans are portrayed as inept and poorly trained. If not for our involvement the English would be speaking German. For years before we were involved how much equipment and munitions did we provide? Seems like the English have forgotten just as the French have.
Many times in the book Americans are portrayed as inept and poorly trained. If not for our involvement the English would be speaking German. For years before we were involved how much equipment and munitions did we provide? Seems like the English have forgotten just as the French have.
October 30, 2012
Politics aside, an incredible story. Whiting did a great service to his comrades-in-arms.
December 31, 2023
An interesting counter to American myopia.
In my school years I was a math/science major.... history never piqued any particular interest. I read what was necessary ... which of course was the American version of WWII with American's sanitized heroes, villians, and "accompanying characters". Many years later, when I was able retire, I took up reading with a passion and I've spent the last two years reading novels and historical and biographical accounts of WWII. This book, written by a British author, gave me a much more thorough insight into this one particular battle, the battle of the bulge. I was taught the Patton, despite warts, was God-like.... This author's view is quite different. This book widened my myopic view.
In my school years I was a math/science major.... history never piqued any particular interest. I read what was necessary ... which of course was the American version of WWII with American's sanitized heroes, villians, and "accompanying characters". Many years later, when I was able retire, I took up reading with a passion and I've spent the last two years reading novels and historical and biographical accounts of WWII. This book, written by a British author, gave me a much more thorough insight into this one particular battle, the battle of the bulge. I was taught the Patton, despite warts, was God-like.... This author's view is quite different. This book widened my myopic view.
March 15, 2024
Interesting perspective on a decisive battle in WW2. Author doesn’t pull any punches in stating facts but also lets a little partisan rhetoric creep into his narrative, but most authors do. Author does tend to repeat descriptive phrases over and over and conversations in this book. All in all it’s a decent book giving the Brits the recognition they deserve. It’s sad that egos played so big a part in this war, that so many young lives were sacrificed to satiate said egos.
December 12, 2023
Review of The Battle of the Bulge:Britain’s Untold Story
I never knew really anything about the battle of the bulge other than it was extremely cold and difficult. But once again the same scenario came through as in every other war history I’ve read. The regular soldier suffered the decisions of the top generals made trying to prove who was top dog!
I never knew really anything about the battle of the bulge other than it was extremely cold and difficult. But once again the same scenario came through as in every other war history I’ve read. The regular soldier suffered the decisions of the top generals made trying to prove who was top dog!
July 11, 2023
truth will out
A compelling account told by a then serving ‘Tommy’ of the unsung British involvement in this titanic battle. Such a pity egos and politics get in the way of fair mindedness.
A compelling account told by a then serving ‘Tommy’ of the unsung British involvement in this titanic battle. Such a pity egos and politics get in the way of fair mindedness.
November 26, 2023
An excellent outline account of the US Army in the Battle of the Bulge and an even better account of the little-known campaign the British Army fought there, interesting, full of anecdote, and a sound appraisal of the (non) relationship between Montgomery and the American High Command.Recommeded.
December 15, 2023
the Battle of the Bulge: Britain’s untold story.
It enriched my knowledge of the Battle of the Bulge. I was not aware how involved the British were in holding the Germans away from breaking through.
It enriched my knowledge of the Battle of the Bulge. I was not aware how involved the British were in holding the Germans away from breaking through.
March 22, 2024
Battle of the bulge Britain's untold story
A very good read for people wanting to start their research on this .although I have done bucket loads myself I still enjoyed it
A very good read for people wanting to start their research on this .although I have done bucket loads myself I still enjoyed it
February 2, 2025
I have read few history book on this battle
This book had a lot facts I was not aware of a good read if u want the hole story
This book had a lot facts I was not aware of a good read if u want the hole story
August 5, 2023
A very interestin account of a little known operation of the British army
May 2, 2020
Charles whiting presents a different, and arguably, poorly known aspect of the Battle do the Bulge - that of the significant British involvement in the battle. Perhaps on of the most disputed battles in terms of who the heroes were in the Second World War, with the 101st Airbourne strongly disputing the narrative that they needed saving by Patton too
On the one hand Whiting goes some way to correcting the narrative of the battle, away from a purely American effort, however in his turn, and by design, this does not cover the US contribution in any detail. The book is also littered with throwaway remarks about key generals on all sides, which don’t always add to the credibility of the text even if true.
Worth reading to understand a broader picture, but as part of a wider bibliography of this battle.
On the one hand Whiting goes some way to correcting the narrative of the battle, away from a purely American effort, however in his turn, and by design, this does not cover the US contribution in any detail. The book is also littered with throwaway remarks about key generals on all sides, which don’t always add to the credibility of the text even if true.
Worth reading to understand a broader picture, but as part of a wider bibliography of this battle.
May 18, 2021
Whiting is a good writer, in that he knows how to engage the reader. But as a historian I am always slightly frustrated by his poor referencing, so it is difficult, if not impossible to follow up on angles you might wish to pursue or check. This is most relevant in this book when he presents a version of the battle greatly at odds to the well known version, and as such raises many questions for the student of WWII. But this is a very readable account, and well worth a look if you are interested in the Battle of the Bulge.
January 18, 2020
You want to understand the British contribution to the Battle of the Bulge.... how Monty moved his divisions before Patton, how Monty braced up the two US Armies under his command - arriving with outriders and a large Union Jack, how XXX Corps blunted the tip of the German advance.
Stirring stuff.
Stirring stuff.
July 1, 2018
Great read and a new perspective from the author. I highly recommend it to history buffs, especially those who enjoy reading about WWII!!
July 25, 2018
A lot of detail but it just doesn’t flow well
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews