I understand that some of the men responsible for the above were sentenced to death ( I seem to recall several pictures of the trial, including the sentencing of a young Lt to death).
Were all these sentences commuted please? If so, why?
Thanks
Malmedy Massacre
-
John W. Howard
- Moderator
- Posts: 2276
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 10:55 pm
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Hello Joolz:
If you do a forum search on Malmedy Massacre or Baugnez Massacre, you should find plenty of information. To give you a quick answer some death sentences were commuted, due to improper interrogation techniques used to gain confessions. There was also the matter of deciding who was culpable; Jochen Peiper was sentenced to death, but the evidence against him certainly was not convincing; he was not in the vicinity of the massacre when it occured, and there was no proof he had issued orders that Allied POW's should be executed. In fact, an American officer testified on Peiper's behalf to the excellent and correct treatment he received at Peiper's hands. Senator Joe McCarthy( Yes, that Joe McCarthy!!) was from a district in Wisconsin, USA, with many German-Americans in it, and he lead the charge exposing German confessions beaten out of defendants.
All in all, the whole affair is a confusion, but there can be no doubt that the soldiers were killed at Baugnez. There are several good books about the subject, although I do not have their names to hand. Just so you know, I try mightily not to whitewash war criminals, just accept them for who they were and move on. When I first started studying Baugnez, I was convinced Peiper was guilty and deserved to die, but the more I have read about the massacre, the less I feel that way. There are good biographies of Peiper out there, some reportedly biased one way or the other, but informative. I hope this has helped, but a search of this forum should turn up plenty of information to mull over. Best wishes.
If you do a forum search on Malmedy Massacre or Baugnez Massacre, you should find plenty of information. To give you a quick answer some death sentences were commuted, due to improper interrogation techniques used to gain confessions. There was also the matter of deciding who was culpable; Jochen Peiper was sentenced to death, but the evidence against him certainly was not convincing; he was not in the vicinity of the massacre when it occured, and there was no proof he had issued orders that Allied POW's should be executed. In fact, an American officer testified on Peiper's behalf to the excellent and correct treatment he received at Peiper's hands. Senator Joe McCarthy( Yes, that Joe McCarthy!!) was from a district in Wisconsin, USA, with many German-Americans in it, and he lead the charge exposing German confessions beaten out of defendants.
All in all, the whole affair is a confusion, but there can be no doubt that the soldiers were killed at Baugnez. There are several good books about the subject, although I do not have their names to hand. Just so you know, I try mightily not to whitewash war criminals, just accept them for who they were and move on. When I first started studying Baugnez, I was convinced Peiper was guilty and deserved to die, but the more I have read about the massacre, the less I feel that way. There are good biographies of Peiper out there, some reportedly biased one way or the other, but informative. I hope this has helped, but a search of this forum should turn up plenty of information to mull over. Best wishes.
John W. Howard
-
panzermahn
- Associate
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:09 am
- Location: Malaysia
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Hi,
It was Peiper's attorney, Lieutenant Colonel Willis Everett who fought the hardest to get his "Malmedy" boys reprieve. Everett later wrote a book regarding the Dachau Trials and his involvement for Peiper and the "Malmedy" boys.
Regarding biographies on Peiper, there are several ones, namely written by Charles Witting, James Lucas, Patrick Agte, Jens Westemaier and the upcoming one (2009) by Danny S. PArker. Some of these autobiographies were accused of being pro-Peiper (Patrick Agte's) and anti-Peiper (Jens Westemaier) but again, I would have to say, read it for yourself and make your own judgement.
However, personally, I had read an excerpt chapter published by Danny S Parker from his upcoming book on Peper and found it was excellent.
Regarding the Malmedy massacre, in my personal opinion, I think the depiction during the first 20 minutes in the movie "Saint and Soldiers" (2005) strikes me the most accurate of all but I am sure there others who points that this movie was a fiction :)
Regards
Panzermahn
It was Peiper's attorney, Lieutenant Colonel Willis Everett who fought the hardest to get his "Malmedy" boys reprieve. Everett later wrote a book regarding the Dachau Trials and his involvement for Peiper and the "Malmedy" boys.
Regarding biographies on Peiper, there are several ones, namely written by Charles Witting, James Lucas, Patrick Agte, Jens Westemaier and the upcoming one (2009) by Danny S. PArker. Some of these autobiographies were accused of being pro-Peiper (Patrick Agte's) and anti-Peiper (Jens Westemaier) but again, I would have to say, read it for yourself and make your own judgement.
However, personally, I had read an excerpt chapter published by Danny S Parker from his upcoming book on Peper and found it was excellent.
Regarding the Malmedy massacre, in my personal opinion, I think the depiction during the first 20 minutes in the movie "Saint and Soldiers" (2005) strikes me the most accurate of all but I am sure there others who points that this movie was a fiction :)
Regards
Panzermahn
-
Cott Tiger
- Associate
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
- Location: England
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Hi Panzermahn,panzermahn wrote: I think the depiction during the first 20 minutes in the movie "Saint and Soldiers" (2005) strikes me the most accurate of all but I am sure there others who points that this movie was a fiction :)
Regards
Panzermahn
Saints and Soldiers is fiction,although of course it based around real life events. That said, I do actually agree with you somewhat. How the film protrayed the actual killings seems,to me at least, to be fairly plausible.
Regards,
André
Up The Tigers!
-
michael kenny
- Associate
- Posts: 812
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 5:09 am
- Location: Northern England
Re: Malmedy Massacre
The book 'Duel In The Mist'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Duel-Mist-Kampf ... 100&sr=8-1
has 20 pages on The War Crimes with very detailed accounts from the participants. In essence it seems that there were US soldiers (5?) shot after capture in Stoumont (this is not denied) and though the accused said they confessed under duress they did not say they did not shoot the prisoners. Rather they had to because they were ordered to-by Peiper for one.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Duel-Mist-Kampf ... 100&sr=8-1
has 20 pages on The War Crimes with very detailed accounts from the participants. In essence it seems that there were US soldiers (5?) shot after capture in Stoumont (this is not denied) and though the accused said they confessed under duress they did not say they did not shoot the prisoners. Rather they had to because they were ordered to-by Peiper for one.
-
panzermahn
- Associate
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:09 am
- Location: Malaysia
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Hi AndreCott Tiger wrote:Hi Panzermahn,panzermahn wrote: I think the depiction during the first 20 minutes in the movie "Saint and Soldiers" (2005) strikes me the most accurate of all but I am sure there others who points that this movie was a fiction :)
Regards
Panzermahn
Saints and Soldiers is fiction,although of course it based around real life events. That said, I do actually agree with you somewhat. How the film protrayed the actual killings seems,to me at least, to be fairly plausible.
Regards,
André
Yes, I would think it most plausible. I believed what really happens is that initially the Germans had no intention to massacre the prisoners. But inexplicablly somehow, it happens when a couple of Americans trying to flee (or somewhat there has been a struggle) and the Germans started firing. At the end, they actually finished off the wounded ones still alive which is a war crime nonetheless.
Best regards
Panzermahn
-
Cott Tiger
- Associate
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
- Location: England
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Killing unarmed and surrendered POW’s is a war crime in itself. It’s not just the “finishing them off” that makes this incident a war crime, Panzermahn.
Regards,
André
Regards,
André
Up The Tigers!
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Joolz,
I would also recommend Ralf Tiemanns book "7th Kompanie" which chronicles the Kompanie "responsible or otherwise" for the Malmedy/Baugnez atrocity. The events have been discussed here and elsewhere many times before, and will no doubt continue to be subject of intense argument for as long as there are students of history who are captivated by these events. I include myself in this statment.
Tiemann puts over another plausible version of events. I don't think we will ever know for sure. It was 64 winters ago...
I would also recommend Ralf Tiemanns book "7th Kompanie" which chronicles the Kompanie "responsible or otherwise" for the Malmedy/Baugnez atrocity. The events have been discussed here and elsewhere many times before, and will no doubt continue to be subject of intense argument for as long as there are students of history who are captivated by these events. I include myself in this statment.
Tiemann puts over another plausible version of events. I don't think we will ever know for sure. It was 64 winters ago...
Simon Harrold
WW2 Battlefield Relics: German Erkennungsmarken decoded.
WW2 Battlefield Relics: German Erkennungsmarken decoded.
Re: Malmedy Massacre
From something I posted in another forum some time ago:
They didn't establish as a fact that torture was used as a method. The report of the Simpson commission mentioned "mock trials and other improper practices" in connection with some of the confessions, but does not specify these practices. "Torture" isn't mentioned and as such was not the reason to commute these death sentences.
During July and August 1948 the Simpson Commission made an investigation of the Dachau cases involving approved but unexecuted death sentences. This investigation was made at the direction of the Secretary of the Army and included the twelve Malmedy accused under approved death sentence at that time. On 14 September 1948 the Commission rendered its report to the Secretary of the Army. Among other things, the Commission recommended that the twelve approved but unexecuted death sentences in the Malmedy Case be commuted to life imprisonment. The Commission gave the following reasons for such recommendations:
a.) The crimes were committed in the heat of one of the most furious battles of the war.
b.) It is extremely doubtful that an American court-martial would impose any punishment more severe than life imprisonment if it were trying members of the American Army who committed like offenses in the heat of battle.
c.) Accused were largely convicted on their own extra-juridical statements and those of their co-accused. Some of the statements were obtained as a result of "mock trials" and other improper practises.
d.) The propriety of many of the methods employed to secure statements is highly questionable. The extent to which these methods were employed cannot be accurately estimated. However, sufficient doubt is cast upon the entire proceeding to make it unwise to proceed with the executions.
Pursuant to the Senate Resolution 42 (Eighty-first Congress), a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services conducted an investigation in April, May and June 1949, with reference to the allegations of improper practices by representatives of the US Army in the pre-trial investigations of the Malmédy Case. Hearings were held in both Washington D.C. and in Germany. On 13. Oktober 1949 the sub-committee issued ist report and findings. The sub-committee found that some irragularities were practiced in obtaining confessions from accused and statements from witnesses during the pre-trial investigations and there were some irregularities at the trial. The committee, however, limited its consideration of the case to the probable need for legislation concerning possible future war crimes and made no recommendations concerning the sentences of the accused convicted in the Malmédy Case. In fact, the sub-committee specifically stated that its functions were legislative only, and that it had no function to re-try the cases or act as a board of appeals or reviewing authority, or to make any recommendations concerning the sentences.
It is highly suspicious that the issue of mistreatment was first raised by the defense lawyers after the trial and those convicts who did file a complaint about mistreatment in Schwäbisch Hall used more or less exactly the same statement. In my opinion there is no doubt that some accused were mistreatened to get confessions. But I think it is also quite obvious that their lawyers and supporters blew these complaints way out of proportions in order to get everybody off the hook.
Also, from the report of the Administration of Justice Review Board earlier in 1948:
c.) That suspects were not deprived of their clothing, but that in some instances cells were not furnished with blankets for short periods of time.
This is one of conclusions a. to r. of this Board that was appointed by the Commander-in-Chief, EUCOM, to make an investigation of allegations of mistreatment of Malmedy suspects held for interrogation during the pre-trial investigation of the case. Their points a., k., l. and m. are interesting:
a.) That there was limited use of "mock trial", probably in eight or ten cases to "soften up"suspects, but that no sentences were pronounced.
k.) That there was a general use of the practise of persuading underlings to talk by telling them the prosecution wanted to get their superiors and was not no much interested in them.
l.) That in certain instances interrogators made threats to suspects that if they did not talk their relatives would be deprived of their ration cards.
m.) That physical force was not systematically applied in order to obtain statements but that undoubtedly in the heat of the moment interrogators on occasions did use some physical force on a recalcitrant suspect.
However, the Board concluded that the practices referred to in a., k., l., and m. in certain instances exceeded the bounds of propriety, but the Board has been unable to identify such cases. Their conclusion marked q. is quite interesting too:
q.) That only 9 out of 73 accused who were convicted took the stand, that it is difficult to understand why the accused who are now claiming duress, violence, etc., did not take the stand at the trial and repudiate their statements and that this fact tends to discredit the allegations now made that the statements were improperly obtained.
They didn't establish as a fact that torture was used as a method. The report of the Simpson commission mentioned "mock trials and other improper practices" in connection with some of the confessions, but does not specify these practices. "Torture" isn't mentioned and as such was not the reason to commute these death sentences.
During July and August 1948 the Simpson Commission made an investigation of the Dachau cases involving approved but unexecuted death sentences. This investigation was made at the direction of the Secretary of the Army and included the twelve Malmedy accused under approved death sentence at that time. On 14 September 1948 the Commission rendered its report to the Secretary of the Army. Among other things, the Commission recommended that the twelve approved but unexecuted death sentences in the Malmedy Case be commuted to life imprisonment. The Commission gave the following reasons for such recommendations:
a.) The crimes were committed in the heat of one of the most furious battles of the war.
b.) It is extremely doubtful that an American court-martial would impose any punishment more severe than life imprisonment if it were trying members of the American Army who committed like offenses in the heat of battle.
c.) Accused were largely convicted on their own extra-juridical statements and those of their co-accused. Some of the statements were obtained as a result of "mock trials" and other improper practises.
d.) The propriety of many of the methods employed to secure statements is highly questionable. The extent to which these methods were employed cannot be accurately estimated. However, sufficient doubt is cast upon the entire proceeding to make it unwise to proceed with the executions.
Pursuant to the Senate Resolution 42 (Eighty-first Congress), a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services conducted an investigation in April, May and June 1949, with reference to the allegations of improper practices by representatives of the US Army in the pre-trial investigations of the Malmédy Case. Hearings were held in both Washington D.C. and in Germany. On 13. Oktober 1949 the sub-committee issued ist report and findings. The sub-committee found that some irragularities were practiced in obtaining confessions from accused and statements from witnesses during the pre-trial investigations and there were some irregularities at the trial. The committee, however, limited its consideration of the case to the probable need for legislation concerning possible future war crimes and made no recommendations concerning the sentences of the accused convicted in the Malmédy Case. In fact, the sub-committee specifically stated that its functions were legislative only, and that it had no function to re-try the cases or act as a board of appeals or reviewing authority, or to make any recommendations concerning the sentences.
It is highly suspicious that the issue of mistreatment was first raised by the defense lawyers after the trial and those convicts who did file a complaint about mistreatment in Schwäbisch Hall used more or less exactly the same statement. In my opinion there is no doubt that some accused were mistreatened to get confessions. But I think it is also quite obvious that their lawyers and supporters blew these complaints way out of proportions in order to get everybody off the hook.
Also, from the report of the Administration of Justice Review Board earlier in 1948:
c.) That suspects were not deprived of their clothing, but that in some instances cells were not furnished with blankets for short periods of time.
This is one of conclusions a. to r. of this Board that was appointed by the Commander-in-Chief, EUCOM, to make an investigation of allegations of mistreatment of Malmedy suspects held for interrogation during the pre-trial investigation of the case. Their points a., k., l. and m. are interesting:
a.) That there was limited use of "mock trial", probably in eight or ten cases to "soften up"suspects, but that no sentences were pronounced.
k.) That there was a general use of the practise of persuading underlings to talk by telling them the prosecution wanted to get their superiors and was not no much interested in them.
l.) That in certain instances interrogators made threats to suspects that if they did not talk their relatives would be deprived of their ration cards.
m.) That physical force was not systematically applied in order to obtain statements but that undoubtedly in the heat of the moment interrogators on occasions did use some physical force on a recalcitrant suspect.
However, the Board concluded that the practices referred to in a., k., l., and m. in certain instances exceeded the bounds of propriety, but the Board has been unable to identify such cases. Their conclusion marked q. is quite interesting too:
q.) That only 9 out of 73 accused who were convicted took the stand, that it is difficult to understand why the accused who are now claiming duress, violence, etc., did not take the stand at the trial and repudiate their statements and that this fact tends to discredit the allegations now made that the statements were improperly obtained.
-
panzermahn
- Associate
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:09 am
- Location: Malaysia
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Hi AndreCott Tiger wrote:Killing unarmed and surrendered POW’s is a war crime in itself. It’s not just the “finishing them off” that makes this incident a war crime, Panzermahn.
Regards,
André
You're right nonetheless but in those circumstances more than 50 years ago, it's very hard to determine if the Germans did intend to kill unarmed and surrendered POWs. The US POWs at the Malmedy Massacre consists not only men from Battery B but also some other units (sorry I had forgotten which units were this..please correct me if I am wrong). Again, I am not saying that Malmedy massacre isn't a war crime but if the Germans did intend to kill surrendered POWs, why would they need to waste time gathering those POWs in a certain area instead of shooting them straight away the moment men from the Battery B raised their hands when their column was overrun and then claimed it happen during the heat of the battle. It's much more belieavable to say a war crime doesn't happen if you found bodies sprawling around near wreckages instead of bodies found in a field where there is nothing around, right?
Again, what I think most likely happen is that, the POWs did try to make a run for it or a commotion somewhat happen (that's why I mentioned earlier that the first 20 minutes of the movie Saints and Soldiers, strikes me the most plausible one), and at the spur of the moment, the Germans shot everyone and then finished off those who were still alive. An undeniable war crime.
Regards
Panzermahn
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Because they did not receive the order to kill them until after they gathered them in that certain area?panzermahn wrote:[...] why would they need to waste time gathering those POWs in a certain area instead of shooting them straight away [...] ?
-
panzermahn
- Associate
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:09 am
- Location: Malaysia
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Possible, since Sturmbahnfuehrer Peiper had ordered the that POWs were not to be "taken" and had the clerk typist of the KG-Peiper to type out the orders not to take POWs, signed it, stamped it with KG-Peiper's official stamp, and send it via 'kradschuzten' to the advance column holding the POWs at Baugnez. Unfortunately, the typed order not to take POWs were somewhat lost during the journey and the motorcyclist who reach the German unit holding the POWs at Baugnez informed the senior commander orally that Peiper ordered no POWs to be taken and a member of the advance unit who was a Volksdeutsche from Romania (as identified by Lt. Virgil Lary during the Dachau trials) opened fire first and the rest followed. Despite this, apparently Peiper had forgotten about his earlier own orders to his men not to take POWs when he took Major Harold McCown and his men as POWsTimoWr wrote:Because they did not receive the order to kill them until after they gathered them in that certain area?panzermahn wrote:[...] why would they need to waste time gathering those POWs in a certain area instead of shooting them straight away [...] ?
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Or some lower ranking officer like Pötschke drove by after Peiper left the scene, saw the prisoners in the field, realized that they did not have the manpower and time at that moment to guard them until they could be moved to the back, and ordered them to be "bumped off". Peiper giving a direct order or not simply has no direct connection with your assumption that it makes no sense to gather them as prisoners before killing them.
-
Cott Tiger
- Associate
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
- Location: England
Re: Malmedy Massacre
Timo,
Thanks for useful and detailed post yesterday, regarding the interrogations.
Regards,
André
Thanks for useful and detailed post yesterday, regarding the interrogations.
Regards,
André
Up The Tigers!
Re: Malmedy Massacre
My pleasure André! I think it all comes down to this: obviously the SS murdered those prisoners but not because of some divisional or higher Befehl but simply because some of Peiper's subordinates ordered the execution of the gathered unarmed Americans. Probably Poetschke but whoever it was, the Americans made a wrong move when trying to pin the blame on every Kampfgruppe member by inventing this order from above to make no prisoners. If some of the convicted men were guilty, and some probably were, then their conviction was a coincidence and had nothing to do with serious investigations or a fair trial. It was also a big mistake because those LSSAH members who did know which soldiers are guilty of this crime lost all trust in fair justice and - combined with their strong believe in comradery - decided not to speak out.