This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / German / North America / United States / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Belgium Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

https://local21news.com/news/local/mount-joy-wwii-veteran-honored-with-letter-from-president-trump

Is it worth updating the link to Harold Billow? He's now 97.

Yes, most definitely - nice to see some good news. Thank you for the suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Billow passed away recently, I think he deserves a minor section in the article. Nate Rybner 05:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs)

IP editor. I really don't understand your point. You seem to want to state categorically and solely that KP was responsible for between 538 and 749 US deaths without

1. agreeing that this was a post-war figure presented to the senate in 1949
2. acknowledging that others have come up with different figures

If you are insisting on using a contemporaneous figure then it's up to you to provide a source for that figure and for it to be clear this was a contemporaneous figure based on whatever methodology was used at the time. At the moment you are using the 1949 report to the senate as the source.

It is not anachronistic to discuss the numbers killed regardless of when the formation of opinions occurred. Nthep (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the article should mention the fact Allied soldiers regularly murdered unarmed German POWs? Patton covered up the killings of German POWs in Italy. (86.135.242.61 (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

If reliable sources explicitly relate that to the Malmedy massacre, perhaps, with due weight. Avoid original research, especially synthesis. (Hohum ^@) 19:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to give the impression that the Malmedy massacre was somehow justified because the Allied forces also committed similar acts. That's an inappropriate thing to imply. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 21:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather hypothetical, but if reliable sources explicitly state, for instance, that it was a motivation, then it should be in the article, with due weight. I doubt such sources exist. My point being that article content shouldn't be based on sensibilities, but on sources. (Hohum ^@) 01:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under the war crimes trial section at the very end it states that Peiper and Dietrich were released after serving time and no death sentences were carried out. If you look at the actual article for the Dachau Trials it shows execution dates. So is the source cited wrong or is the Dachau Trials article wrong? Wildweasel42 (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

under "Background" subheading "Military," the text states that the German offensive action was called the "Ardennes Counteroffensive." This is incorrect. The German action was "Operation Watch on the Rhine" [Unternemehn Wacht am Rhein]. Allied forces called German action the Ardennes Offensive; therefore the Allied response was "The Ardennes Counteroffensive." Battle of the Bulge was a name created by news media for its catchy alliteration. ~2025-33193-72 (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]