Joachim Peiper by Jens Westemeier, A Review

[Jan-Hendrik]

Intersting, I never hear anything similar from the fraction that rants about Jens' Bias" about the bias of the NS-Apologet Agte

Why??

Because he still offers the modern Knight of WW2 many seem to look for?

Isn't it clear, that young Peiper had as Adj. of RFSS had more insight in the criminal reality behind the curtain of Himmler's psudo-germanic Propaganda that most others?

Maybe because many are disturbed that Peiper's case is a good example how well, apart from the HIAG's postwar agitation, protectionism worked within the SS? Or does anyone still believes that the high rise of Peiper had no connection to that RFSS "held his hand avove him"?

If you think about those questions with an open mind you might see why Jens' research is so neccessary

Jan-Hendrik

[M.H.]

Why Peiper is seen as a knight by many?

Why is there a movie filmed about Stauffenberg right now..who from the beginning was close to the Nazis and their ideas?
Who only startet to object as the things got wrong?

Why do many people see him as a hero?

I know about people (Poles too) who absolutely object to him being
presented as a hero and a good man!
But still even the official Germany sees him in a favourable light...

How come?

I think would Peiper only get a slice of the slack Stauffenberg is given
he would not be so condemned by the self-righteous....

[sid guttridge]

Hi M.H.,

Interestingly, the other Fuhrer, Doenitz, said after the war that if he had known about what was being done in the regime's name, he would have understood the motivations of Stauffenberg and his fellow conspirators. If Doenitz found it difficult to condemn them when in full posession of the facts, who are we to do so?

I don't think Stauffenberg can be accused of being "close to the Nazis and their ideas".

Staufenberg was an old school German nationalist, whose vioews on this were pretty strong, but he was no Nazi.

Cheers,

Sid.

[M.H.]

That's exactly the problem Sid!

All is seen with hindsight today and Stauffenberg WAS close to the Nazis and their ideas from the beginning! And he did everything to ensure the Nazis and Hilter were successful!

„Im April 1932 sprach sich Stauffenberg anlässlich der Reichspräsidentenwahl gegen Paul von Hindenburg und zugunsten von Adolf Hitler aus. Im Mai 1933 wurde er zum Leutnant ernannt.
“

1938 marschiert er als einer der ersten in die von den Nazis „Sudentenland“ genannte Tschechoslowakei ein.

1939 ist er an vorderster Front am Angriffskrieg gegen Polen beteiligt.

1940 weiterhin als hoher Offizier am Überfall auf Frankreich beteilgt.

„Im Dezember

1941 hieß Stauffenberg die Vereinheitlichung der Befehlsgewalt des Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres und des Obersten Befehlshabers der Wehrmacht in Hitlers Händen gut.“


Erst 1943, nachdem er in Afrika zum Krüppel geschossen wurde entdeckte Stauffenberg seine Gegnerschaft zu Hitler.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Sche ... auffenberg


Nothing else as Peiper did
Even if many don't want to see it anymore...

Now THAT would be an interesting subject for an biograpy!

[pzrmeyer2]

Why does this biography and Peiper in general create such a divided opinion? And if Peiper was ein Brutale, hell say so. I mean, you wouldn't approach a biography of Himmler with anything but contempt for the subject...

Putting a moral hat on for the moment, whatever Peiper's qualities as a soldier, surely these are outweighed by his criminal actions which, to me, are far greater a measure of the man.

which specific "criminal actions" are you measuring Peiper by? and with who's evidence?

[pzrmeyer2]

Intersting, I never hear anything similar from the fraction that rants about Jens' Bias" about the bias of the NS-Apologet Agte

what? you mean there arent entire threads written by your friends at AHF and elsewhere that have skewered Mr Agte? And my review above mentions and understands that Agte also is not the most objective Peiper biographer. However, having read both, it is clear that as much as Agte may be predjudiced in favor of Peiper, Westemeier is much, much more so from the opposite, negative perspective.

Because he still offers the modern Knight of WW2 many seem to look for?

who specifically are you referring to? or are you chasing bogeymen who arent there? I'm not looking for blond nazi knights, I'm looking for an objective bio of Peiper, and this isnt it.

Isn't it clear, that young Peiper had as Adj. of RFSS had more insight in the criminal reality behind the curtain of Himmler's psudo-germanic Propaganda that most others?

no, it certainly is not clear. and insight of "criminal reality" makes Peiper guilty of what exactly, that warrants his murder 30 years later?

Maybe because many are disturbed that Peiper's case is a good example how well, apart from the HIAG's postwar agitation, protectionism worked within the SS? Or does anyone still believes that the high rise of Peiper had no connection to that RFSS "held his hand avove him"?

aha, so thats it: anger at how good of a job the HIAG did in protecting one of their own is what has you (and Jens) so upset? guess you should direct your anger at them, not cheap character assassination of Peiper. or would everything be ok if the HIAG bungled everything?

If you think about those questions with an open mind you might see why Jens' research is so neccessary

Jan-Hendrik

Necessary for what? and for whom? those who enjoy history slanted in the direction they think it occurred? or written for their little group of friends to curry favor with them? sorry, ainy buying it. And if Jens analysis is so chrystal clear, then why did he have to go so over the top in smearing Peiper? wouldnt Peiper's own actions, presented in an even tone, speak for themsleves as to how eeee-vil he was?

[pzrmeyer2]

Staufenberg was an old school German nationalist, whose vioews on this were pretty strong, but he was no Nazi.

so whats the difference? what makes old school German nationalism ok and not the other? were "crimes" committed by one allowable so long as they were not nazis? and what makes one a nazi? after all, technically speaking, neither was Peiper a nazi. regardless of what he said later there is still not proof that Peiper was aware that he was a member of the NSDAP on paper.

[Jan-Hendrik]

Necessary for what? and for whom? those who enjoy history slanted in the direction they think it occurred? or written for their little group of friends to curry favor with them? sorry, ainy buying it. And if Jens analysis is so chrystal clear, then why did he have to go so over the top in smearing Peiper? wouldnt Peiper's own actions, presented in an even tone, speak for themsleves as to how eeee-vil he was?

The level/tone of your reaction shows that my questions hit the nail

I have not to chase anything/ anybody, I am just interested in historical research, that's my matter

aha, so thats it: anger at how good of a job the HIAG did in protecting one of their own is what has you (and Jens) so upset? guess you should direct your anger at them, not cheap character assassination of Peiper. or would everything be ok if the HIAG bungled everything?

Again you seem to fail in your "interpretations". Researching history is something else than simple repeating of old fairy tales

Maybe you simply put to much projection into the person Peiper, this would explain your anger against everbody who dares to bring back the mystified Peiper figure on the ground of serius history.



Jan-Hendrik

[Michael Miller / ABR]

We know one thing about Peiper that is not clear re: von Stauffenberg. Peiper accompanied Himmler on a daily basis while the RFSS was personally directing his Kommandostab RFSS forces, the HSSPF, and the Einsatzgruppen in the East during the summer and fall of 1941. He accompanied Himmler on his 17./18. July 1942 inspection of Auschwitz-Birkenau (photos exist that prove this), during which the RFSS witnessed the gassing of a transport of Dutch Jews. He accompanied Himmler on several other inspection tours of concentration camps and units of the Sipo/SD, Orpo, and Waffen-SS while they were actively engaged in the mass murder of noncombatants. One can argue that he didn't have any influence over these things, but he was there- even if only handling paperwork, and that paperwork shuffled by "deskborne murderers" was an integral part of the "Final Solution".

I'm not saying, by the way, that he deserved the end he got in 1976 - that's not for me to decide and either way, it would only be a matter of useless opinion.


~ Mike Miller

[M.H.]

Stauffenberg was a follower of Hitler and promoted him on his way to power....he fighted in Poland...do you want to say Stauffenberg knew NOTHING???


I just think it would be more honest and fair to cut Peiper the same slack as Stauffenberg enjoys!

[phylo_roadking]

whatever Peiper's qualities as a soldier, surely these are outweighed by his criminal actions which, to me, are far greater a measure of the man.

There's one problem about this, and its something that applies to ALL men who have done both questionable acts AND great achievements...exactly how do we know HOW to judge them? By our standards or theirs? And what measurement do we use for "criminal Actions" - ours or their contemporary standards?

For instance - I could name someone who was THE most successful soldier and general of his day....yet carried out a European Holocaust the massacred hundreds of thousands and made hundreds of thousands more slaves, who grew up in a democracy but turned his nation's political clock back to establish one of the worst despotisms in history....

Yet not only did his nation and the vast majority of his peers not complain about ANY of the crimes he committed - but actively supported and did likewise themselves, for that was simply the way things were done....

...and amazingly, WE don't think of him as a murdering butcher - yet his OWN memoirs not only record this but postively BOAST about it...

You see? Even trying to judge someone by OUR standards is difficult, because they are so arbitrary.

Anyone work it out?

[Michael Miller / ABR]

No, I don't want to say that von Stauffenberg "knew NOTHING", nor did I say that. Just "knowing" something is not a crime. Peiper's involvement, minimal as it MAY have been, was complicit. His Adjutant duties had an impact on the conduct of war crimes, even if he was just transmitting a telegraph for Himmler ordering Fegelein to destroy a village or to treat all Jews as "Partisanen".

Stauffenberg may have seen the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland or later in Russia. That's not complicity. If it is, millions of German soldiers were war criminals. Whatever he may or may not have known, he is- in my opinion- released from any "guilt" by the fusillade that cut him down in the Bendlerstrasse.


~ Mike

[Jan-Hendrik]

I would already be happy if people could acknowledge that history is seldom black& white, but in most cases in different shades of Grey

Jan-Hendrik

[M.H.]

...Just "knowing" something is not a crime. Peiper's involvement, minimal as it MAY have been, was complicit. ...

That is bigot!

Peiper KNEW but even his minimal involvment as an adjutant makes him a criminal but Stauffenberg KNEW too and him FIGHTING actively for the system as an officer in the field makes him somehow NOT a criminal...ah ja....

[Jan-Hendrik]

Bigott is only your try to drive the topic on Stauffenberg

Jan-Hendrik