Joachim Peiper by Jens Westemeier
Moderator: sniper1shot
-
Scharfuhrer
- Banned
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:46 pm
Joachim Peiper by Jens Westemeier
Rushed to Judgement on this book. False advertising sucks.
Last edited by Scharfuhrer on Fri May 18, 2007 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jan-Hendrik
- Patron
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: Wienhausen
- Contact:
Jan-Hendrik, just one question: based on the comments herr Westemeier has expressed on this board do you consider him neutral and objective (that is neither anti- nor pro-Third Reich)? I don´t for he has made his anti-Third Reich views very clear and that makes him incapable of producing a neutral and objective book on anything to deal with the Third Reich.
-
Jan-Hendrik
- Patron
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: Wienhausen
- Contact:
Is it possible for anyone to be neutral? 
This is just a philosophic Fatamorgana in my opinion. What I am interested in is the following:
Is Jens ableto base the info presented on facts, especially primary sources?
Yes or no?
As he does it his book ois worth to take a look in. Have you done this already? Simple question, yes or no?
Or do you just follow the pamphlets of the pro-Agte-fraction here and in other foras?
![:[]](./images/smilies/icon_study.gif "Study")
Jan-Hendrik
This is just a philosophic Fatamorgana in my opinion. What I am interested in is the following:
Is Jens ableto base the info presented on facts, especially primary sources?
Yes or no?
As he does it his book ois worth to take a look in. Have you done this already? Simple question, yes or no?
Or do you just follow the pamphlets of the pro-Agte-fraction here and in other foras?
Jan-Hendrik
-
Scharfuhrer
- Banned
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:46 pm
If you are only expressing facts that support your opinion, you are no longer being neutral or objective. Its obvious that the objective of this writing is to convince the uninformed and weak minded that his opinion is the correct one. Thus further sullying the names and reputation his target with misleading information and half facts. YOU CANT WRITE ACCURATE ABOUT HISTORY WHEN YOU HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA!!! 
Atleast he has the desency make it obvious of his views though. Nothing worse than an agenda no one can see.
EDIT: After reading around a bit, I realized this debate has already happened and happened again and again and again. SO sorry if I sound a little heated. Im really not and please keep thing topic peaceful and respectful.
Atleast he has the desency make it obvious of his views though. Nothing worse than an agenda no one can see.EDIT: After reading around a bit, I realized this debate has already happened and happened again and again and again. SO sorry if I sound a little heated. Im really not and please keep thing topic peaceful and respectful.
J-H, I can be completely neutral. For example, a neutral person condemns all war crimes or no war crimes at all. I.e. killing e.g. 100 unarmed civilians must be equally condemned or not condemned at all whether they are killed through air power or by an execution squad. Does mr. Westemeier follow this honest standard or does he adopt double standards like that killing of Jews is something more evil than killing of e.g. apaches? Based on his comments he is quilty of the latter double standard.
And has mr. Westemeier consulted primary records in an objective manner or has he e.g. placed special emphasis on records that support his opinions?
Finally, I don´t read pamphlets and as for Agte´s Peiper bio, I think it is poorly constructed and not really a bio as such (an exemplary biography is e.g. Carlo D'Este´s Patton bio). D'Este allows the voice of his subject to speak for himself. Does herr Westemeier allow herr Peiper to speak for himself?
And has mr. Westemeier consulted primary records in an objective manner or has he e.g. placed special emphasis on records that support his opinions?
Finally, I don´t read pamphlets and as for Agte´s Peiper bio, I think it is poorly constructed and not really a bio as such (an exemplary biography is e.g. Carlo D'Este´s Patton bio). D'Este allows the voice of his subject to speak for himself. Does herr Westemeier allow herr Peiper to speak for himself?
Uncle Joe
Killling the Jews was in fact, a worse crime than killing the Apaches. First, the scope was huge. Second - the Jews were no threat to anyone - except in the minds of the Nazis - Jews come in all shapes, sizes and ideologies - just like everyone else.
The apaches did get a raw deal from the US govt. However, before we idealize them we should remember that they were willing to be peaceful with the US primarily because they saw us fighting Mexicans in 1846. Since they took great pleasure in killing Mexicans they assumed we were natural allies.
The Apaches were certainly among the most warlike races of all time and were really good at it. The actions of a few criminal Americans stirred up a war with them which threatened virtually everybody within hundreds of miles - not an supposed ideological threat like the Jews to the Nazis - but the threat of torture and death.
that said I take no pride in any of our Indian wars nor in the ability of our disgusting govt to keep their word with treaties. As Ten Bears said to Josie Wales "there can be no peace with the doubletongues."
I'm pleased to say however, that my Lutheran church has a long standing partnership with the Apaches in Arizona and we have killed none of them nor have they killed any of us. Funny how that works.
cheers
Reb
Killling the Jews was in fact, a worse crime than killing the Apaches. First, the scope was huge. Second - the Jews were no threat to anyone - except in the minds of the Nazis - Jews come in all shapes, sizes and ideologies - just like everyone else.
The apaches did get a raw deal from the US govt. However, before we idealize them we should remember that they were willing to be peaceful with the US primarily because they saw us fighting Mexicans in 1846. Since they took great pleasure in killing Mexicans they assumed we were natural allies.
The Apaches were certainly among the most warlike races of all time and were really good at it. The actions of a few criminal Americans stirred up a war with them which threatened virtually everybody within hundreds of miles - not an supposed ideological threat like the Jews to the Nazis - but the threat of torture and death.
that said I take no pride in any of our Indian wars nor in the ability of our disgusting govt to keep their word with treaties. As Ten Bears said to Josie Wales "there can be no peace with the doubletongues."
I'm pleased to say however, that my Lutheran church has a long standing partnership with the Apaches in Arizona and we have killed none of them nor have they killed any of us. Funny how that works.
cheers
Reb
-
John P. Moore
- Author & Moderator
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:40 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon & France
New Peiper Book
I don't believe that people like "Scharführer", who use SS-related screen names, have any real credibility, especially when they are confused about the military rank of the book's subject. I'll reserve my judgement on the book's content until after I have read my copy that I ordered last month from Amazon that is selling the book for only $37.77, in contrast to the $59.95 retail price that Schiffer has. If people want to disagree with something specific that Jens Westemeier wrote about Joachim Peiper I hope they will back up their comments with their sources of information.
John
John
-
Scharfuhrer
- Banned
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:46 pm
Jochen S.
No we dont. I paid $68.98 in advance for a book that was advertised as having a fair and balanced bio of a personality shrouded in myth and mystery. Instead I recieved the oppostite. An strongly opinionated "cherry picker" with half the facts. Call me crazy, but I like to get what I pay for. NOW, if you still want it. You can pay me $60 the book itself cost me and whatever the shipping cost is. Do WE have a DEAL?
John P. Moore
Do you know me? I should think not. My SN is based on the equivelent of my rank in the military. As for StF Peipers rank, Get over it. I had 5 minutes to post before I had get back to work. The subject of this post was a book review. This is my opinion. Get the book and get your own.
As for bringing about the skewed facts of this book. Heres the one that annoyed me the most. Westemeier called the overturning of Peipers conviction a tool for W-SS apologists. He completely ignored the fact that the Melmedy confessions were tortured from them. Thats NOT FAIR OR BALANCED! He also called acredited writings like Cronicals of the Leibstandarte by Tiemann/Lehmann as rubbish made for "old comrades"! From the begining he pushes his agenda and practically screams of a conspiracy by SS Vets and Right Wing activists, regarless of the involvement or not, to hide the truth and paint a different history. If this is a writing about HISTORY why does he need to mention conspiracys and the like? Present the facts, the memories, and documents fair and balanced. Then it is on the reader to decide his opinion of Peiper.
No we dont. I paid $68.98 in advance for a book that was advertised as having a fair and balanced bio of a personality shrouded in myth and mystery. Instead I recieved the oppostite. An strongly opinionated "cherry picker" with half the facts. Call me crazy, but I like to get what I pay for. NOW, if you still want it. You can pay me $60 the book itself cost me and whatever the shipping cost is. Do WE have a DEAL?
John P. Moore
Do you know me? I should think not. My SN is based on the equivelent of my rank in the military. As for StF Peipers rank, Get over it. I had 5 minutes to post before I had get back to work. The subject of this post was a book review. This is my opinion. Get the book and get your own.
As for bringing about the skewed facts of this book. Heres the one that annoyed me the most. Westemeier called the overturning of Peipers conviction a tool for W-SS apologists. He completely ignored the fact that the Melmedy confessions were tortured from them. Thats NOT FAIR OR BALANCED! He also called acredited writings like Cronicals of the Leibstandarte by Tiemann/Lehmann as rubbish made for "old comrades"! From the begining he pushes his agenda and practically screams of a conspiracy by SS Vets and Right Wing activists, regarless of the involvement or not, to hide the truth and paint a different history. If this is a writing about HISTORY why does he need to mention conspiracys and the like? Present the facts, the memories, and documents fair and balanced. Then it is on the reader to decide his opinion of Peiper.
Well Scharführer,
My offer wasn't serious
His first edition in Geman was published in 1996. In the meantime this has been 'updated' two times already and now published in English language. He had the courage to change his opinion on Peiper and some of his men because of new research and evidence.
I wonder if you have read the German editions or have privileged evidence why you believe his Eng.edition is crap. Did you ever try to contact Jens Westemeier personally before you began shouting on the net? I guess not. I think you are just a believer of the innocent 'hero' Peiper myth, and not willing to accept any other view.
I am not saying that you are not entitled to have an opinion, but I - for one - am hoping that you will show us some sources or evidence which back up your opinion.
Jochen S.
My offer wasn't serious
His first edition in Geman was published in 1996. In the meantime this has been 'updated' two times already and now published in English language. He had the courage to change his opinion on Peiper and some of his men because of new research and evidence.
I wonder if you have read the German editions or have privileged evidence why you believe his Eng.edition is crap. Did you ever try to contact Jens Westemeier personally before you began shouting on the net? I guess not. I think you are just a believer of the innocent 'hero' Peiper myth, and not willing to accept any other view.
I am not saying that you are not entitled to have an opinion, but I - for one - am hoping that you will show us some sources or evidence which back up your opinion.
Jochen S.
-
Scharfuhrer
- Banned
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:46 pm
Jochen S
I tend to respond to sarcasm with more sarcasm. I would have no Idea how to contact him personally. It was only after I started looking on here that I realised he had been present on this site. Oldly enough only posting twice as far as I can tell. Secondly I wouldnt want to talk to him. Left wingers make me mad and I find it hard to get them past there rhetoric.
I lost the majority of my books on the subject when my apartment flooded last September. HOWEVER, a short search found this...
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScr ... cre03.html
I found these few things intresting.
"The Malmedy Massacre proceedings were conducted like a US Army court martial, except that only a two-thirds majority vote by the panel of 8 judges was needed for conviction" Hmmmm thats a little off.
"The proceedings lasted for only two months" Kinda short for a mass murder trial, dont ya think.
"Fearful that they might incriminate themselves on the witness stand, their defense attorney, Lt. Col. Everett, who believed that they were guilty, persuaded most of the SS soldiers not to testify on their own behalf." 1 Lawyer for 73 men?!?! Thats absurd!
"The courtroom was in the Dachau complex where the former concentration camp was located. The blackened chimney of the Dachau crematorium loomed in the distance, only a quarter of a mile away from where the Jewish "law member" of the court sat under a huge American flag pinned to the wall. It had been only a little more than a year since soldiers in the American Seventh Army had discovered the horror of the gas chamber at Dachau and dead bodies piled up in the morgue of the crematorium building." Sound like that might have had some unfair influence?
"After only 2 hours and 20 minutes of deliberation by the panel of judges, all 73 of the accused SS soldiers, who were on trial, were convicted." Kinda short dont ya think? Especially for a murder trial
"According to Weingartner, shortly before the proceedings were to begin, defense attorney Lt. Col. Everett interviewed a few of the 73 accused with the help of an interpreter. Although the accused were being held in solitary confinement and had not had the opportunity to consult with each other, most of them told identical stories of misconduct by their Jewish interrogators." Funny how that happens.
Now I didnt get to finish reading but this one is my favorite.
"The accused claimed that they had already had a trial, which was conducted in a room with black curtains, lit only by two candles. The judge was a Lt. Col. who sat at a table draped in black with a white cross on it. After these mock trials in which witnesses testified against the accused, each one was told that he had been sentenced to death, but nevertheless he would have to write out his confession. When all of them refused to write a confession, the prosecution dictated statements which they were forced to sign under threats of violence. There was no question that these mock trials had actually taken place, since the prosecution admitted it during the investigation after the Dachau proceedings ended."
Is it any wonder the trial overturned?!?! Jens Westemeier used these confessions as evidence that Peiper and his men were guilty all the while ignoring the manner in which these confessions were brought out! Please read on.
I tend to respond to sarcasm with more sarcasm.
I would have no Idea how to contact him personally. It was only after I started looking on here that I realised he had been present on this site. Oldly enough only posting twice as far as I can tell. Secondly I wouldnt want to talk to him. Left wingers make me mad and I find it hard to get them past there rhetoric. I lost the majority of my books on the subject when my apartment flooded last September. HOWEVER, a short search found this...
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScr ... cre03.html
I found these few things intresting.
"The Malmedy Massacre proceedings were conducted like a US Army court martial, except that only a two-thirds majority vote by the panel of 8 judges was needed for conviction" Hmmmm thats a little off.
"The proceedings lasted for only two months" Kinda short for a mass murder trial, dont ya think.
"Fearful that they might incriminate themselves on the witness stand, their defense attorney, Lt. Col. Everett, who believed that they were guilty, persuaded most of the SS soldiers not to testify on their own behalf." 1 Lawyer for 73 men?!?! Thats absurd!
"The courtroom was in the Dachau complex where the former concentration camp was located. The blackened chimney of the Dachau crematorium loomed in the distance, only a quarter of a mile away from where the Jewish "law member" of the court sat under a huge American flag pinned to the wall. It had been only a little more than a year since soldiers in the American Seventh Army had discovered the horror of the gas chamber at Dachau and dead bodies piled up in the morgue of the crematorium building." Sound like that might have had some unfair influence?
"After only 2 hours and 20 minutes of deliberation by the panel of judges, all 73 of the accused SS soldiers, who were on trial, were convicted." Kinda short dont ya think? Especially for a murder trial
"According to Weingartner, shortly before the proceedings were to begin, defense attorney Lt. Col. Everett interviewed a few of the 73 accused with the help of an interpreter. Although the accused were being held in solitary confinement and had not had the opportunity to consult with each other, most of them told identical stories of misconduct by their Jewish interrogators." Funny how that happens.
Now I didnt get to finish reading but this one is my favorite.
"The accused claimed that they had already had a trial, which was conducted in a room with black curtains, lit only by two candles. The judge was a Lt. Col. who sat at a table draped in black with a white cross on it. After these mock trials in which witnesses testified against the accused, each one was told that he had been sentenced to death, but nevertheless he would have to write out his confession. When all of them refused to write a confession, the prosecution dictated statements which they were forced to sign under threats of violence. There was no question that these mock trials had actually taken place, since the prosecution admitted it during the investigation after the Dachau proceedings ended."
Is it any wonder the trial overturned?!?! Jens Westemeier used these confessions as evidence that Peiper and his men were guilty all the while ignoring the manner in which these confessions were brought out! Please read on.
Thats why or I wont condem them man as a purely a murderer. Jochen, traits like that are hard to find. That is selflessness at its best. I hate to break it to you but no one is blameless in war. We do things we later regret. The fog of war is such that we cannot help this. I coming to Peipers defense because his trait are ones that I would hope to find in my own commander and because there are few that will defend him. Im willing to hear other views, but you too must provide facts to support it. Ive read both sides and this is the opinion I have of the matter. If theres something you think Im not aware of please by all mean educate me."It's so long ago now. Even I don't know the truth. If I had ever known it, I have long forgotten it. All I knew is that I took the blame as a good CO should and was punished accordingly." Jochen Peiper, quoted in A Traveler's Guide to the Battle for the German Frontier by Charles Whiting. Col. Joachim Peiper, pictured above, volunteered to take all the blame if his men could go free, but this offer was declined by the court.