Joachim Peiper by Jens Westemeier, A Review

[Paddy Keating]

Sid,

I prefer not to engage with you. It is not pettiness. It is simply a preference based on my own moral code, for what it is worth. I will not respond to your questions. Get over it. I am not your therapist. I've got a load of baggage of my own without acting as one of your whipping boys for whatever it is that is eating you. Is there any part of this simple statement that you fail to understand? Game over. End Ex. You blew it. I don't deal with 51ars.

PK

[sid guttridge]

Hi Paddy,

The choice is, of course, yours, but others will draw their own conclusions from your (or anyone's) repeated failure to answer reasonable questions.

This is a thread about Westermeier's book. You have expressed a number of problems with it, including it appears about its factual accuracy.

I ask for a fourth time:

What are the significant factual errors in Westermeier's book?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. What are "51ars"?

[Paddy Keating]

Sid,

I prefer not to respond to any questions from you.

That's all there is to it.

PK

[pzrmeyer2]

Sid,

since Paddy has wisely decided to disengage from you, allow me to respond since I currently have insomnia:

I too "am rather disinclined to engage in any discussion with you for various reasons." The difference is that:

1) My reasons are good.

2) I am not so petty as to let them obstruct debate.

which reasons are those Sid? your contrived vendetta about privacy rights? and your snively little comments and provocations show that you are petty after all. and you dare speak of debate? one side has read the book and discusses facts and you—what point are you trying to make exactly?

It doesn't much matter whether Peiper was personally responsible for the massacre or not (although evidence brought up here still indicates that he was implicated). Some may not be satisfied as to which individual was responsible, but be it Peiper or another, it was certainly an in-house Waffen-SS job.

Doesnt much matter whether he was personally responsible? are you serious? are you even remotely supportive of western standards of justice?why then the apologia at the lengths the Allies went to to convict him? and the lenghts of this lot to character assassinate the man 30 years after his murder? So 1) its not the preponderance of the evidence, just the seriousness of the charge that is important? and 2) it matters not the specific individual, just shoot them all for collective guilt?

As far as I know (and I am sure you will correct me if wrong) there is no evidence as to who killed Peiper after the war and you are being over certain in your accusation.

Wrong. maybe, again, you should read the book—indeed nearly any book about the events in Traves and make an educated assumption. Maybe you should send me your address and I’ll send you my copy.

There is nothing wrong with writing "it seems possible/likely that.....".

In that case I’m waiting for your apology and retraction for stating that my reasonable question as to a possible motive for Westemeier’s about face was a character slur.
As I stated in my original review:
Is it plausible that, in the modern Germany, with its constant paranoia about Nazism and neo-Nazism, that someone "got to" Westemeier and "suggested" that he "correct" his Peiper book, on pain of messing up his career? It certainly seems possible, as the vast majority of footnoted sources in the new book were available to Westemeier before he published his very different first book, if one goes by dates of letters and interviews.

Declaiming questionable things as facts doesn't make them so, it merely calls into question the good judgement of the proposer.

who is doing that besides you?

Sorry, but there are monsters, as well as those capable of acting monstrously. Which Peiper was I do not know.

maybe you should read up on the man before you throw your lot in with those who have passed judgement based on emotion and agenda-driven hatred rather than reason and sound evidence.

If the Waffen-SS was such a dedicated anti-Bolshevik force, how come it suffered a higher proportion of its casualties on the Western Front than the German Army and a lesser proportion of its casualties on the Eastern Front than the German Army?

Sid, Sadly, I think that you are suffering from early stage Alzheimers. You might wish to get that checked out. As I have repeated to you now for the fourth time (and judging by your response to the previous three silence is consent), last I checked, soldiers don’t normally get to pick where and which enemy they will be employed against. That is typically a decision for “Higher HQ”. The fact remains, many Waffen SS volunteers cited fighting bolshevism as a a reason for joining up. Do you dispute that fact? Furthermore, a simple comparison to US forces shows the idiocy of your point. How many young Americans who joined up on 8 Dec 41 to “kill Japs” found themselves at the business end of Hein Severloh’s MG42 on D-Day or frozen in some foxhole in Belgium in Dec 44? They didn’t exactly choose to be there, now did they?

If Peiper was "hard done by", he was certainly in a small minority! But then the punishment decreed for him was not carried out and he retired to the country of his wartime enemies. Somehow I don't think he merits too much pity!

Obviously this statement above shows your undeniable ignorance of the subject matter and it is not difficult to see your overall contempt and hatred for any Waffen SS soldier.

And, for the third time of asking:

What are the factual errors in Westermeier's book you claim?

As I stated in the original review: . The problem I had with this book is not the amount of research and time the author devoted to the subject, but the overall bias and contemptuous tone Westemeier has for his subject and openly takes throughout the book, robbing it of its objectivity.

Are you seriously discounting and ignoring the role of journalistic bias in how facts are “shaped” to get a predictable and desired result from the reader? How a story is framed (and which facts are omitted) contributes mightily to the opinion-forming of the reader. In short, Westemeier plays fast and loose with the facts and injects his opinion to them to influence any casual reader and remove any abilty of the reader to make up his own mind about the truth about Peiper.

Finally, I know you are frustrated with getting the answer out of Paddy that you’ve now asked three times. Hopefully, I answered for you(again). Now, I’m still waiting for your thoughtful and truthful response to the one I asked you: Did you volunteer to join the irregular forces of a rogue, unrecognized white supremacist regime or were you forced into it? Wouldnt the British Army have been a less political option? And the warcrimes you admit to participating in, what should your punishment be? have you ever considered turning yourself in to the Zimbabwean authorities? if not, why not?

[Andy H]

Erik wrote:

Is it plausible that, in the modern Germany, with its constant paranoia about Nazism and neo-Nazism, that someone "got to" Westemeier and "suggested" that he "correct" his Peiper book, on pain of messing up his career? It certainly seems possible

Hi Erik

A review is a personnel interpretation of events/facts, and as I haven't read either book its not my place to comment on that aspect of this thread.

However I'm somewhat perplexed by the assertion that JW has done the second book because of pressure, in whatever form to protect his career.

As I posted earlier, he wrote the first book in 1996 in which to use your words "in the modern Germany, with its constant paranoia about Nazism and neo-Nazism" would be as relevent, as it is 2007, the date of his second book.

Here's a guy who writes a book about a subject that even in 1996 would be seen as contentious under his own name. I'm presuming that he was serving in the military at this time-no one has stated otherwise-and as such I think that its common practice to get approval from superior officers etc to undertake something which may reflect the military in a negative/positive manner.

Surely his career was also under threat back in 1996, which makes his decision to use his real name all the more perplexing, unless no such threat existed then or now?

Regards

[phylo_roadking]

Andy, there IS a diference in the German political climate between 1996 and 2007. Somewhere on Feldgrau I believe there's a thread mentioing the huge number of prosecutions in recent years there on charges of Holocaust Denial, people sacked from jobs etc. - the whole paranoia has ramped up significantly in the last three to four years. In 1996 Germany was still getting over the trauma of reunification, today it has moved onward and upward....but not necessarily always in the most positive or constructive of directions.

[Andy H]

Andy, there IS a diference in the German political climate between 1996 and 2007. Somewhere on Feldgrau I believe there's a thread mentioing the huge number of prosecutions in recent years there on charges of Holocaust Denial, people sacked from jobs etc. - the whole paranoia has ramped up significantly in the last three to four years. In 1996 Germany was still getting over the trauma of reunification, today it has moved onward and upward....but not necessarily always in the most positive or constructive of directions.

Hi Phylo

I will accept what your saying in regards to Holocaust Denial trials but JW's books are not primarily dealing with such events from what I've seen in this debate.

Its a historical biography amongst hundreds written prior to the current political climate, yet I'm assuming there isn't a larger 'purge' against these authors, of which many will potentially be academics at seats of higher learning or in good standing within society.

I have seen no prove, just an assumption based on opinion. At present I dont agree with that assumption.

Regards

[pzrmeyer2]

Andy, there IS a diference in the German political climate between 1996 and 2007. Somewhere on Feldgrau I believe there's a thread mentioing the huge number of prosecutions in recent years there on charges of Holocaust Denial, people sacked from jobs etc. - the whole paranoia has ramped up significantly in the last three to four years. In 1996 Germany was still getting over the trauma of reunification, today it has moved onward and upward....but not necessarily always in the most positive or constructive of directions.

Hi Phylo

I will accept what your saying in regards to Holocaust Denial trials but JW's books are not primarily dealing with such events from what I've seen in this debate.

Its a historical biography amongst hundreds written prior to the current political climate, yet I'm assuming there isn't a larger 'purge' against these authors, of which many will potentially be academics at seats of higher learning or in good standing within society.

I have seen no prove, just an assumption based on opinion. At present I dont agree with that assumption.

Regards

Hi Andy, I tend to agree with Phylo; No JWs book is not about the BIG H or denial of it, .but it is a response to another aspect of the supposed "far right" conspiracy campaign to whitewash the Reich: The debunking of "hero myths" about a martyred "SS poster boy". We can all see that modern Germany grows ever more sensitive as the years go by and the actual memories recede. I only offered one possible reason for JWs conversion. He and his friends offer up "new sources" yet a cursory view of the notes doesnt really show any. It seems more likely that the book was a response to the "Peiper groupies" who allegedly launched a hate campaign against Mr Westemeier and his friends for their own responses to Patrick Agte's bio. I have suggested that people interested In Jochen Peiper read both books and form their own conclusions as to the actions and motivatoins of Peiper in context to his times. Sprinkle in Michael Reynolds as well.


one question: can you please clarify?

I have seen no prove, just an assumption based on opinion. At present I dont agree with that assumption.

[Andy H]

Hi Erik

I have seen no prove, just an assumption based on opinion. At present I dont agree with that assumption

I meant in regards as to why JW wrote the book, as a means to safekeep his career in the current political environment.

Like yourself as a serving military man I'm surprised by him using his real name given the subject matter, be it in 1996 or 2007.

Was he a serving in the military at the time of his first book in 1996? and if so what rank?

What's his current rank if he's still serving?

Regards

[pzrmeyer2]

Hi Erik

I have seen no prove, just an assumption based on opinion. At present I dont agree with that assumption

I meant in regards as to why JW wrote the book, as a means to safekeep his career in the current political environment.

Like yourself as a serving military man I'm surprised by him using his real name given the subject matter, be it in 1996 or 2007.

Was he a serving in the military at the time of his first book in 1996? and if so what rank?

What's his current rank if he's still serving?

Regards

I believe he was a major when his first book was written and a Lt Col (reserve) when this latest one was.

[phylo_roadking]

I have to say - the fact that he had to use his real name a SECOND time says more about the situation. A second time to correct the first time. If he'd published as Joe Bloggs the second time...there would have been no point in publishing at all.

[Andy H]

Erik wrote:

I believe he was a major when his first book was written and a Lt Col (reserve) when this latest one was

Thanks for the clarification

In order to be promoted to Major (major; a rank only career officers can achieve), the officers have to complete successfully a course called Stabsoffizierlehrgang (SOL) (field grade officer basic course). It takes a minimum of 10 years of officer's service to become a major. Oberstleutnant '(lt.-col.) is the standard final rank for career officers which can be awarded after 17 years of service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_rank_insignia

The above states that Oberstleutnant '(lt.-col.) is the standard final rank for career officers and it seems that JW had reached that mark.

I'm still unconvinced that JW wrote the second book to safeguard his career. If someone can show me there is a wider 'witchunt' against other authors (whose previous books from the same era as JW's first) are being coerced to write retractions etc then maybe I would give the previous assumption some credence.

Regards

[Annelie]

In his forward he states

I do not want to forget to thank the Veterans of the former Waffen-SS for their time and hospitality. But I also want to make my point crystal clear: most of their information had the pure purpose to bend history in the sense of the "old comrades." Indeed, some personal invitations were just to learn how close my research had brought me to the historical truth.

it goes on.. but you may read it.

How many times have we heard how historians whom receive first hand information are obliged to double check everything? Is he saying his research is flawed? Is he covering up sloppy work? Is he inventing another slant in the same way in which he "claims" the Veterans have?

Again, I state IMHO that any historian should write the facts in an unbiased way. After acquiring the book I wish now I handn't, for the act of buying it has in my opinion only contributed to his income and recognition.

[pzrmeyer2]

I'm still unconvinced that JW wrote the second book to safeguard his career. If someone can show me there is a wider 'witchunt' against other authors (whose previous books from the same era as JW's first) are being coerced to write retractions etc then maybe I would give the previous assumption some credence.

thats fine, Andy. I attempted one possible theory to explain why someone would do such a 180 on the same sdubject matter without introducing very much new source material. Given the rampant politcal correctness and reflexive hysteria in the EU on any topics remotely "nazi", I thought it made sense.

Your quote here got me thinking about another:

The above states that Oberstleutnant '(lt.-col.) is the standard final rank for career officers and it seems that JW had reached that mark.

Perhaps it is the very fundamentally different nature of todays's Germany and today's German miltary, manifested in JW that might explain things. In the antebellum Germany, top officers like Peiper both by choice and by necessity sought out combat leadership assignments anf judged themselves by those positions. It seems that in today's corporate Bundeswehr, the most coveted posting is to be a career staff officer, keeping ones hands clean from muddy boots assignments. Not that there are many of those either, other than feed the hungry and clothe the naked type missions. Such individuals, growing up in this environment hmay have a hard time relating to the descion -making of men forged in authoritarian regimes and by the mud and blood of daily combat. It reflects a different temperament and mentality both of the times and of the folks who serve. Just a thought....

[Paddy Keating]

Where are the Peiper quotes I posted?

PK