Axis Pows in Allied hands...and other stuff.

[sid guttridge]

Hi pzrmeyer,

The rest of your post is structurally a little confusing, but I will try to disentangle it.

A) No, the Waffen-SS was very different from the US Marine Corps. The US Marine Corps has no political affiliation, unlike the Waffen-SS. What is more, it has a military specialisation - amphibious warfare - unlike the Waffen-SS, which had no military specialisation to distiguish it from the German Army. There was no military justification for an independent Waffen-SS from the Army. The existence of the Waffen-SS at all was entirely for political reasons.

B) I am always happy to post to PK, but it is he, not me, who has retired to his tent.

C) The point that "Up to the end of 1944 (the last date we have figures for) the Waffen-SS suffered a lower proportion of its losses fighting the red Army than the German Army did." is relevant if one is talking about the German Waffen-SS as an institution. In practice, it was not the spearhead against Bolshevism that was claimed at the time.

I say again, OF COURSE individual soldiers don't get a choice as to which front they are posted to. I have never pretended otherwise.

However, it does mean that retrospectively it would be inaccurate to pretend that the Reich-raised Waffen-SS men were in practice the spearhead against Bolshevism. The German Army was! This was not the individual Waffen-SS man's fault, but that is the fact of the matter and no amount of wishful thinking, or putting up straw men, or inventing my positions will change that. Sorry.

D) I did not write that Peiper "doesn’t deserve pity." What I actually wrote was as follows: "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!" Again, please don't invent my positions. It does you no credit.

E) You ask, "How do you determine if Peiper was contemptible?". The same way one does with anyone else. By their actions.

F) If by "rogue" you meant "unrecognised" why write both together? When I think of a "rogue" state I think of somewhere like Somalia where all central institutions have collapsed. Rhodesia was nothing like that.

G) The British Army was not an option for the reason I explained last time. It wasn't in Rhodesia. Is this so very difficult to understand? There would have been equally little point in joining the Bolivian Army if one wanted to serve in Vietnam, etc., etc.

H) I did not do what Peiper did. Nor did I "accuse" him of anything. I simply stated a fact. He joined a political militia in a state that already had a national armed forces in which he still had military obligations. I volunteered for the existing regular armed forces of the state. No equivalent of the Waffen-SS existed in Rhodesia.

I) Yes. Peiper may have thought that before entering the dock. On the other hand he may not. Your point is?

J) No luck involved., amnesty or no amnesty.

You do realise that by spuriously trying to link me to war crimes you are doing exactly what I pointed out you were doing with Westermeier? i.e. make personal attacks without a shred of evidence? I don't mind this because it is absurd and it merely highlights the fallacy of your original attack on Westermeier.

Next?

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Uncle Jo,

If one wants to extend back into history one can also find that the Engilsh committed the first pogrom against Jews in Western Europe at York in the Middle Ages and that the word "Holocaust"was applied to it.

However, though true, it has no direct relevance to WWII.

I would question whether there was ever a US state-sponsored policy of exterminating Amerindians. If there was, it certainly failed. They were certainly widely killed, maltreated and their lands misappropriated, as the US Supreme Court told Andrew Jackson regarding the Cherokees. However, do you have any actual evidence of a state policy of extermination?

Cheers,

Sid.

[pzrmeyer2]

Sid, I have made my case about Westemeier's obviously biased account of Jochen Peiper. I have given you evidence of such bias and you choose to ignore it. You asked for evidence as to where your comparisons about death rates for the SS were answered before and I showed you. You have failed to honeslty address your own actions and choices in war and role in war crimes. You repeat over and over that you know next to nothing about Peiper yet you cite "the facts" about why you find him contemptible. Whatever. Dont take my advice and read the books. Keep knocking my review, a review in which I've received praise or acknowledgement from sources all across the political spectrum here and elsewhere, from usual adversaries as well as friends, and most of all from several respected authors and even a few veterans themselves. There is nothing more I can say. Please do not address me on this topic again. Like Paddy, I'm done with you.

[Cott Tiger]

Hi Paddy,

Make your mind up Paddy. Was it attempted murder as you first suggested, or as you appear to be now insinuating actual murder.

Your re-hashed version of Bacque’s discredited argument has been systematically dismantled before, so I don’t think we need to go over all that old ground again here.

Regards,

André

[phylo_roadking]

Only Bacque's numbers have been shown to be wrong. The fact is there is enough evidence in the words of various parties in government in the US etc to confirm that it WAS state policy. The fact is that due to the resilience of the German people and even minor factors like HAVING to feed working DEP's so they COULD work keeping them alive long enough to benefit from the change in policy in january 1947.

Like it or not - if someone is told the result of his apparently "innocent" actions will be the death of another person - he's guilty of murder. Thus on March 20th 1945, when FDR was warned that JCS 1067 was not workable, the destruction of German industry as intended would reduce the population of germany down to the required size by famine and disease, his response was "Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!" THEN asked if he wanted the German people to starve, he replied, "Why not?"

It doesn't matter a jot if it was ONE person or a MILLION - he was warned ahead of schedule his plans would cause German deaths, and he continued. Thus a sin of commission, not ommission....and guilty of murder.

You're quite right, this WAS discussed before, and there is overwhelming evidence that all parties knew it would cause the deaths of German civilians and servicemen AFTER the war, and either saw no problem with this or actively approved of it. The policy existed, their comments existed - whether or not anyone actually died doesn't make it any more OR ANY LESS of a crime.

[krichter33]

Read the book "After the Reich: The Brutal History of The Allied Occupation" by Giles MacDonogh. To get back on topic, I agree with Panzermeyer. You should read Agte's, Westemeier's, and also Reynolds book and then decide for yourself. I just continue to hope Parker's book is more professional.

[sniper1shot]

I am not sure what Sids past has to do with this book in the Book section.

Cott Tiger- There are books out there that describe exactly what the Allies did to the German POW's at the end of the war. American and French forces definately do not come out with clean hands. I believe the titles are The Other Side (though not exactly sure)....and not to mention when the Allies handed over their POWs of Soviet origin.
Plse stop trying to instigate this point by insinuating it did not happen.

Again, what does this have to do w/this book in the book section??

Sid

I take it that you got clearance from the Moderators here to continue this subject?

What do you mean by this one?? The fact you answered it means you are just as guilty.

Last Warning to all parties here....stay on topic !!

[Cott Tiger]

Cott Tiger- There are books out there that describe exactly what the Allies did to the German POW's at the end of the war. American and French forces definately do not come out with clean hands. I believe the titles are The Other Side (though not exactly sure)....and not to mention when the Allies handed over their POWs of Soviet origin.
Plse stop trying to instigate this point by insinuating it did not happen.

Sniper1shot

The point I am “instigating” is that the US did not murder one million German POW’s. There is no “missing million” German POW’s.

If the book you are referring to is Other Losses by James Bacque, then I have read it and studied it in detail. It is spectacularly flawed and has been systematically demolished by a group of distinguished historians, scholars and academics.

Yes, Americans and French mistreated POW’s. All sides mistreated POW’s during WWII. That much is not in doubt. However, I will let not the false accusation that the US murdered a million POW’s go unchallenged on this forum.

Regards,

André

[Andy H]

I just continue to hope Parker's book is more professional.

I have a feeling it will ignite the issue one way or another

Regards

[phylo_roadking]

However, I will let not the false accusation that the US murdered a million POW’s go unchallenged on this forum.

Its the intent that can't be challenged - sadly.

[sniper1shot]

Yes, that was the title.
As for being flawed, I believe any book can be challenged by anyone with a degree behind their name.
I have not read the book myself......just pointing out anything and everything is challenged by someone.

As for deliberatly murdering 1million Pow's, I agree that that is far fetched but I have read in quite a few memoirs (both allied and axis) that the Pow's were not treated in accordance with Geneva Convention. Food was scarce to non existant...shelter or at least the means to construct shelter was denied which that alone caused the deaths of a lot of Pow's due to exposure.

go unchallenged on this forum

Fine, no problem with that BUT do it on a new thread in the proper forum NOT the book Forum.

[Cott Tiger]

Sniper1shot,

I did not choose to bring up this subject here. I am merely refuting a false accusation. Perhaps you could split this off from the book review thread.

The following extract is taken from a debate on the Historical News Network website:

It is not necessary to review here Bacque's extravagant statistical claims which are the heart of his conspiracy theory. The eight scholars who gathered in New Orleans and contributed to Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts against Falsehood (1992) refuted Bacque's wily misinterpretations of statistics and oral history evidence in detail. Numerous reviews of the book written by the top talent in the military history profession such as John Keegan and Russel Weigley were persuaded by the findings of the book. These findings have since been further solidified by detailed case studies on individual American POW camps in Germany hastily built at the end of the war like Christof Strauss's exhaustive Heidelberg dissertation on the POW and internment in the Heilbronn camp.

The mountain of evidence has been building that Bacque's charge of the "missing million" supposedly perishing in the American (and French) POW camps in Germany and France is based on completely faulty interpretation of statistical data. There was never any serious disagreement that the German POWs were treated badly by the U.S. Army and suffered egregiously in these camps in the first weeks after the end of the war. That the chaos of the war's end would also produce potentially mismatches and errors in record keeping should surprise no one either. But there was NO AMERICAN POLICY to starve them to death as Bacque asserts and NO COVER UP either after the war. No question about it, there were individual American camp guards who took revenge on German POWs based on their hatred of the Nazis.

Source: http://hnn.us/articles/1266.html#Bischof

It is also worth taking a look at Stephen Ambrose’s review of Bacques work

Link: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bac ... e-001.html

An extract from that review:

Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.

Regards,

Andre

[Cott Tiger]

Eisenhower's redesignation of German POWs as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" - a grim precursor to the "Unlawful Enemy Combattants" of Gitmo infamy - allowed his command to sidestep the Geneva Convention and as many as 900,000 German prisoners are estimated to have died of starvation and exposure in barbed wire enclosures without any cover during the winter of 1945/46. International Red Cross inspectors were excluded from these camps and IRC food packages and other aid was returned. There are contemporary accounts of truckfuls of bodies leaving the camps on a daily basis and civilians who attempted to throw food over the wire being fired upon by guards. Eisenhower's occupation policies were condemned by various people at the time, including United States senators....


...So the truth will probably never be known. But the picture seems quite clear. Even if some of the 900,000-plus "MIAs" can be explained away as having fallen through the administrative net in the chaos of the immediate postwar period, it is reasonable to say that there was a plan proposed by certain people to cull the German population, that it was discussed openly at various official levels and that there were attempts to implement it,


PK

Paddy,

You seem to have shifted your position somewhat from the stance you took on this topic a few years back Axis History Forum

….while it is beyond doubt that many German POWs, particularly captured Waffen-SS men, were dreadfully mistreated by US military personnel, it is stretching credibility to entertain the notion that there was a deliberate conspiracy by the Western Allies to murder between 800,000 and over 1,000,000 German POWs.

Source: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... d1fea22bcc

So what is your actual position on this Paddy.

Regards,

Andre

[pzrmeyer2]

But there was NO AMERICAN POLICY to starve them to death as Bacque asserts and NO COVER UP either after the war. No question about it, there were individual American camp guards who took revenge on German POWs based on their hatred of the Nazis.

not exactly true. I would suggest as Klaus said earlier that one read MacDonogh's excellently sourced recent book and as Phylo suggest to read JCS 1067.

Note to Moderator: As much as I love the topic of Postwar German Losses, can we please split this off from this thread and put it in a new one? It has not much to do with Peiper, other than he was a victim of physical mistreatment and roughshod justice, and I'd like it to stay as on-topic as possible. Thanks,

Erik

[pzrmeyer2]

Link: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bac ... e-001.html

I'm not neccessarily challenging the specifics in this case, but I wouldnt exactly consider nikzor an objective source.