Joachim Peiper by Jens Westemeier

[John P. Moore]

Annelie, Andre and Paddy - Thank you for your comments. I was deeply troubled that I was not able to write a more positive review of Jens Westemeier's book. I had been on friendly terms with the author for nearly a year and had come to be very favorably impressed by his research skills and sources. Although he had warned me that I might not be in agreement with everything that I would read in his book, I was completely astonished by what was published. I suspect that the author became so obsessed with his subject over time and finding "the truth" that it affected his ability to present his findings in an objective manner. This should be a lesson for other researchers considering having their work published.

John

[sid guttridge]

Hi John P. Moore,

It seems to me that there has been no objection raised anywhere to the facts presented in the book and you have yourself been impressed by the author's research skills and sources.

That being so, I am at a loss to see what substantive objections there are to the author's conclusions. By all accounts he seems well qualified to make them.

Without having read the book myself, but having read a dozen or more pages of "reviews", it strikes me that the usual W-SS groupies are upset that the book wasn't a hagiography. What they apparently wanted was a whitewash, but what they seem to have got was diligent, evidence-based history instead!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Uncle Joe]

Sid, you don´t still get it. The problem with Westemeier is that he seems to be of the school in which a man´s character is determined entirely how he feels about kikes (all possible insults intented!) and the suffering of this minority is something special. That philosemitist racist ideology colours herr Westemeier´s conclusions and makes his research invalid. Period.

[sniper1shot]

The problem with Westemeier is that he seems to be of the school in which a man´s character is determined entirely how he feels about kikes (all possible insults intented!)

Fail to see where this slander has any bearing on this topic.
PM coming to you!

[Paddy Keating]

I think Sid's post qualifies as slanderous in describing people who questioned Westemeier's work as "Waffen-SS groupies". Uncle Joe certainly employed an abusive term that, regrettably, draws attention away from the valid point he made in his post. It also offers a pretext for deleting the post, which is unfortunate because it strikes a cord with anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of being tagged as an anti-semite as a gagging or smearing strategy.

PK

[Paddy Keating]

Hi John P. Moore,

It seems to me that there has been no objection raised anywhere to the facts presented in the book and you have yourself been impressed by the author's research skills and sources.

I think objections were raised to Westemeier's treatment of the question of Peiper's political beliefs and allegiances!

That being so, I am at a loss to see what substantive objections there are to the author's conclusions. By all accounts he seems well qualified to make them.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think anyone would dispute Westemeier's knowledge of his subject.

Without having read the book myself, but having read a dozen or more pages of "reviews", it strikes me that the usual W-SS groupies are upset that the book wasn't a hagiography. What they apparently wanted was a whitewash, but what they seem to have got was diligent, evidence-based history instead!

Ah yes...now, that is slander! You are slandering those who questioned Westemeier's work or those parts of it reproduced here and on other forum websites as "Waffen SS groupies".

In other words, you are effectively calling us Nazis or neo-Nazis. Of course, you will get away with this as you usually do because you seem to have some sort of free pass to write whatever you feel like writing with total impunity.

PK

[Cott Tiger]

Sid, you don´t still get it. The problem with Westemeier is that he seems to be of the school in which a man´s character is determined entirely how he feels about kikes (all possible insults intented!) and the suffering of this minority is something special. That philosemitist racist ideology colours herr Westemeier´s conclusions and makes his research invalid. Period.

Nice example of how to make a fool out of yourself and loose all credibility in the space of three sentences.

Sterling work.

[Richard Hargreaves]

I have to say I find this discussion extremely interesting, not least because it mirrors many of my own fears about my impending book on the Polish campaign.

I have set a good chapter and a half aside for occupational policy involving (chiefly) soldiers in 1939 and have no doubt that a lot of the findings will not go down well with many former landsers as there is ample evidence from diaries, letters, testimonies etc, that soldiers were complicit in countless criminal acts in Poland. There were Poles, of course, who committed crimes too.

I've sampled a good few hundred accounts and there's little doubt that a large portion of the Wehrmacht was very much Hitler's Army, as Omer Bartov put it a good decade ago.

I think historically I must include occupational policy in a story of the Polish campaign, as otherwise it would merely be a triumph of German arms akin to some 1940 propaganda booklet and the Polish people - and history in general deserves better.

I guess Poland is symptomatic of Nazism. Technically, tactically brilliant, morally abhorrent...

[M.H.]

You can't do much wrong when denigrating the german arms and counting out their failures...it's not actually a new path....so...no fear....publish away!

[sniper1shot]

Locked until sorted out..

Why can't people just post a review and then debate it without name calling.