Hi pzrmeyer3,
What “contrived vendetta”?
Are you saying that it is OK for moderators to make public information given to the administration in confidence? Or to read other posters’ PMs? Etc., etc.
You can take these as rhetorical questions this time, if you want to avoid dragging this whole thing up again and having names named.
However, if you do want to drag this whole thing up again I am quite prepared to participate, but it won’t be my reputation that suffers. Think about it. Consult all the Moderators here and see if they want more of this. If you get their clearance, by all means come back to me on it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yup. It doesn’t matter much if Peiper was personally responsible or not. The massacre still happened and it was still committed by somebody under his command even if he wasn’t personally implicated. We have seen above that he remains personally implicated in some testimony and the best complexion one can put on it is that he failed to exercise proper command and control over his men – and lack of leadership qualities is not a charge I have yet seen raised against him! Are you suggesting it now?
Peiper wasn’t executed, unlike the massacre victims, on whose behalf rather more outrage is deserved, don’t you think? Millions of people were slaughtered in war crimes during WWII but you are getting exercised on behalf of one individual who at worst suffered a miscarriage of justice that did not result in his death or even particularly long imprisonment. So yes, whether Peiper was directly responsible or not doesn’t matter much in the greater scheme of things.
Shoot them all for collective guilt? Surely that is what Nazi Germany was doing through the agency of the SS? I don’t hold with that, nor did the Western Allies. Nor, indeed, was Peiper shot individually, let alone as part of a collective punishment, in case you’ve forgotten.
OK. What is the evidence that fingers any individual or group that killed Peiper? If you have it then you are certainly entitled to write something along the lines of “it seems possible/likely that…..”
The difference is that regarding Westermeier you offer absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he modified the tone of his second book to improve his career prospects. I ask again, have you any evidence whatsoever that this was the case? We have gone for approaching ten pages now without you providing any. Now might be a good moment to do so. Well?
Nor have you at any time suggested that Westermeier’s conclusions fall outside the range of the evidence, which by default gives them some claim on plausibility.
Both Paddy and you appear to have gone beyond the evidence on this thread. You by floating unsupported theories about Westermeier’s motives and Paddy by being over definitive about the identity of Peiper’s killer or killers. If I have too, please point out where, so that I can rectify it. If you can’t, then you are simply engaged in cheap abuse.
“Emotion and agenda-driven hatred rather than reason and sound evidence” you write. I think you might just have summed up your “review” more succinctly that I could have myself!
Absolutely. Individual soldiers don’t get to pick and choose where they serve and so why would I disagree with you on that once, let alone four times? It is hardly a controversial point, is it? Nor have I ever pretended otherwise, so I don’t have anything to defend on that score. (Four times you say. Care to detail the other three times? No? I thought not!)
Nor is it a controversial point that “many” Waffen-SS volunteers cited fighting Bolshevism as a (I emphasise “a”) reason for joining up. However, it is worth pointing out that Germans didn’t have to volunteer for the Waffen-SS to do that and, as it turned out, would probably have done marginally better to join the Army if fighting Bolshevism was their intention.
On the other hand as a “force” (which is what you correctly quote me as writing, but don’t actually address) the German Waffen-SS’s record is not one of being Germany’s spearhead against Bolshevism. In fact, it seems to have been marginally LESS heavily engaged against Bolshevism and marginally MORE heavily engaged against the Western Allies, certainly up to the end of 1944. Indeed, as if to illustrate the point, the massacre Peiper was indicted for took place on the Western Front, not the Eastern.
It is no good claiming my “undeniable ignorance” and then failing to offer a shred of evidence that contradicts the assertion of mine that you are referring to. If it is wrong, explain why.
No. I have no overall contempt or hatred of any Waffen-SS soldiers. For good or bad they were what they were. Paddy’s characterization (I paraphrase) of many of them as immature dupes of a decade of Nazi propaganda seems fair. Few of us have the character to resist such pressures. On the other hand, as the organization that ensured that these unfortunates got disproportionately implicated in war crimes compared to the Army, I think the Waffen-SS as an institution has a lot to answer for. The Nuremberg process made this legal distinction from the very start, and quite rightly.
Perhaps you should do the same.
You may have no problem with factual errors in Westermeier’s book, but Paddy apparently has. And it was to him, not you, that I four times addressed the question “What are the significant factual errors in Westermeier’s book you claim?” Only he, not you, can answer. Indeed, you seem to be in disagreement with him on this point and so would probably not be his best spokesman.
As I haven’t read the book I can’t comment on the tone of it. Maybe it is contemptuous of Peiper, maybe not. However, it is worth pointing out that if a subject is contemptible then a contemptuous response might actually reinforce objectivity rather than detract from it. I reserve judgement on that.
All that you write about the perils of “journalistic bias” and the shaping of facts are well made in the generality. However, I am not too clear how Westermeier plays “fast and loose” with some facts or omits others. Perhaps it is time to read your “review” again.
I don’t recall you asking me your last question before, perhaps you can show me where it is?
However, I am happy to answer, even though it hasn’t even got indirect relevance to Westermeier’s book. I volunteered to join the regular (not irregular) forces of an unrecognized (not, I think, rogue, as it was always controlled) white supremacist regime (and continued to serve after it became multiracial as Zimbabwe-Rhodesia). I was not in any way forced to do so. The British Army was not an option because it had no presence in Rhodesia.
I am particularly interested in the war crimes you claim I admitted participating in. When and where did I do this? I am aware of a number of incidents that were arguably against the laws of war and did a number of things I am not too proud of myself – fortunately for my conscience, none of them fatal - but nothing that I think would find me indicted in a war crimes court.
And no, I have never considered turning myself in to the Zimbabwean authorities because I would have no case to answer. And even if I did have a case to answer, part of the Zimbabwe independence settlement terms was a complete amnesty for participants on all sides.
Thank you for your concern about my personal history. I am very flattered. However, if you have further questions on that score, please ask them on PMs, as they have no relevance here.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. If I missed anything or double post this, put it down to the Alzheimers you kindly suggested I may be in the earlier stages of! What a great “Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free” Card you have given me there. Thanks.
P.P.S. I hope this post cures the insomnia you say is troubling you. If so, no thanks are necessary. The pleasure is all mine.
Axis Pows in Allied hands...and other stuff.
Interesting!
You ask:
Doesn't matter if one is personally responsible or not...someone else in your unit did it so you are guilty too!
Right?
You ask:
Following your logic:"...I am particularly interested in the war crimes you claim I admitted participating in. When and where did I do this? I am aware of a number of incidents that were arguably against the laws of war and did a number of things I am not too proud of myself – ..."
...you are busted Sid!"It doesn’t matter much if Peiper was personally responsible or not. The massacre still happened..."
Doesn't matter if one is personally responsible or not...someone else in your unit did it so you are guilty too!
Right?
-
pzrmeyer2
So I’m “3” now? why is that?Hi pzrmeyer3,
the one you’ve been carrying on about now over 4+ threads on multiple webforums about how you’re so concerned about everyone’s rights being violated. No one likes to have someone reading their mail, but having said that, I’ve got nothing to hide so I couldn’t care less. Moreover, I cant say that I wouldn’t have checked out a PM from you knowing that it was probably something sneaky, as your whole existance at feldpost was to undermine it.What “contrived vendetta”?
No.Are you saying that it is OK for moderators to make public information given to the administration in confidence? Or to read other posters’ PMs? Etc., etc.
You can take these as rhetorical questions this time, if you want to avoid dragging this whole thing up again and having names named.
However, if you do want to drag this whole thing up again I am quite prepared to participate, but it won’t be my reputation that suffers. Think about it. Consult all the Moderators here and see if they want more of this. If you get their clearance, by all means come back to me on it.
You have no reputation other than a webforum hemorrhoid and as such the less of you the better so , no , I don’t want to continue this line.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which massacre are we talking about Sid? Malmedy? Boves? I thought Hilligs’ testimony ydeals only with the shooting of one solitary POW. Or does everything merge in to one now?Yup. It doesn’t matter much if Peiper was personally responsible or not. The massacre still happened and it was still committed by somebody under his command even if he wasn’t personally implicated.
“Personally implicated in some testimony”, “failed to exercise C& C” are those charges enough to convict someone and imprison them with a death sentence for mass murder? Under which nation’s laws would that hold up in court?We have seen above that he remains personally implicated in some testimony and the best complexion one can put on it is that he failed to exercise proper command and control over his men – and lack of leadership qualities is not a charge I have yet seen raised against him! Are you suggesting it now?
So its ok for a misscarriage of victors’ justice to torture, imprison, and forever taint an innocent man as a war criminal?Peiper wasn’t executed, unlike the massacre victims, on whose behalf rather more outrage is deserved, don’t you think? Millions of people were slaughtered in war crimes during WWII but you are getting exercised on behalf of one individual who at worst suffered a miscarriage of justice that did not result in his death or even particularly long imprisonment. So yes, whether Peiper was directly responsible or not doesn’t matter much in the greater scheme of things.
No, that’s what you imply as you now claim that he should pay since he was there, regardless if he personally ordered or participated. Oh, the Allies didn’t do it? tell that to the families of the murdered SS medics at/near Dachau, among other places. No Peiper was collectively convicted along with a number of other combat soldiers and sentenced to death, a sentence carried out on several of them.Shoot them all for collective guilt? Surely that is what Nazi Germany was doing through the agency of the SS? I don’t hold with that, nor did the Western Allies. Nor, indeed, was Peiper shot individually, let alone as part of a collective punishment, in case you’ve forgotten.
Please Sid. Read the books. read any article related to Peiper. Familarize yourself before spouting more verbal diarrhea. Besides, I’m entitled to say “it seems possible/likely that…..”OK. What is the evidence that fingers any individual or group that killed Peiper? If you have it then you are certainly entitled to write something along the lines of “it seems possible/likely that…..”
whenever I wish, and without your permission.
No I have no evidence, just as you have no evidence that he didn’t. Just a supposition. What is your opinion on why he changed his tune Sid?The difference is that regarding Westermeier you offer absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he modified the tone of his second book to improve his career prospects. I ask again, have you any evidence whatsoever that this was the case? We have gone for approaching ten pages now without you providing any. Now might be a good moment to do so. Well?
really? I used rational reason and argument to break down individual statements in the book. Show me where I substituted emotion for R & A. Maybe you should read the book. I seem to remember you calling me an “SS groupie” among other things on another thread when describing my review. Whats my agenda in the review?
Both Paddy and you appear to have gone beyond the evidence on this thread. You by floating unsupported theories about Westermeier’s motives and Paddy by being over definitive about the identity of Peiper’s killer or killers. If I have too, please point out where, so that I can rectify it. If you can’t, then you are simply engaged in cheap abuse.
“Emotion and agenda-driven hatred rather than reason and sound evidence” you write. I think you might just have summed up your “review” more succinctly that I could have myself!
PJAbsolutely. Individual soldiers don’t get to pick and choose where they serve and so why would I disagree with you on that once, let alone four times? It is hardly a controversial point, is it? Nor have I ever pretended otherwise, so I don’t have anything to defend on that score. (Four times you say. Care to detail the other three times? No? I thought not!)
Lieutenant
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 197
Location: UK Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Hello Haen,
Then they were misled! It was the German Army that was most heavily engaged against the Bolsheviks.
Until the end of 1944 (the last time the figures can be differentiated) the Waffen-SS as a whole had suffered a higher proportion of its casualties against the Western Allies than against the Red Army! It was the German Army that carried the main burden, even proportionally, of the war in the East, not the W-SS.
A relatively small number of Western Europeans did join the Waffen-SS, but they had little choice because a political decision had been made that non-German volunteers should be directed to the Waffen-SS. In this sense, many, perhaps most, were not making a political choice.
PJ
Back to top
Phones
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 531
Location: Marineville Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
The Waffen-SS was part of the Wehrmacht, in the same way that the USMC is part of the US armed forces. And the Waffen-SS, which numbered just under a million in 1944, compared to the Heer's total manpower of 6.5m, shouldered its share of the burden in the battle against Bolshevism. Holland supplied the largest number of volunteers of any of the states making up Greater Germany, with 50,000 men signing up for the Eastern Front.
PK
_________________
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there - George Santayana
Back to top
Erik/pzrmeyer2
Moderator
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 273
Location: North Carolina, USA Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:46 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
Until the end of 1944 (the last time the figures can be differentiated) the Waffen-SS as a whole had suffered a higher proportion of its casualties against the Western Allies than against the Red Army! It was the German Army that carried the main burden, even proportionally, of the war in the East, not the W-SS.
completely irrelevent. The soldiers and tactical units of the Waffen SS did not deceide in which strategic theater they were to be assigned.
_________________
What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?
George Orwell
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius
Back to top
PJ
Lieutenant
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 197
Location: UK Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Hello Erik,
Nope. The US Marine Corps does not have any party political affiliation and is open to all.
Nope. 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. (see Overmans).
And yet the Netherlands, the most well represented Western European country in the W-SS, still couldn't supply enough men to keep a full division in the field!
(By the way, did you know the Dutch were offered land grants for joining up?)
PJ
Back to top
Erik/pzrmeyer2
Moderator
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 273
Location: North Carolina, USA Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Quote:
Nope. The US Marine Corps does not have any party political affiliation and is open to all.
It is not open to all! They have discriminatory requirements, just as any miltary organiztion does. Just as the Wehrmacht did. Most members of the Waffen SS did not have party affiliation either.
Most officers and many of the NCOs in the USMC are Republicans. The diffeecne is the lines of distinction between the party and the state are far different inthe USA than in Germany at the time. However, PK's analogy is still valid. Perhaps you'd care to address your post to him, and not me?
Quote:
Nope. 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. (see Overmans).
Again, I say irrelevent. A soldier today "joining up" to fighht Al Qaeda in Afghanistan may find himself instead depolyed to Iraq, or even Colombia for that matter. It still doesnt detract from the original intent of the enlistee. Soliders are not automatically granted their wish to be stationed where they choose. If so, everyone would want to be in Italy or Hawaii.
Hows that for starts? There is another example from feldgrau that I'm still trying to find. Maybe you can do a search of your own post on the subject and tell us what you find.
You say it is not a controversial point, yet you keep making it over and over as if it has merit. And it extends to more than just individual solders. Do Divisions of volunteers have any more say so than an individual squaddie in their ranks? Did the LSSAH ask to be sent to the Ardennes?
Again, irrelevant to the motives and rationale of its members for joining. The Waffen Ss served at the pleasure of its masters, just like every other branch of the Wehrmacht.Nor is it a controversial point that “many” Waffen-SS volunteers cited fighting Bolshevism as a (I emphasise “a”) reason for joining up. However, it is worth pointing out that Germans didn’t have to volunteer for the Waffen-SS to do that and, as it turned out, would probably have done marginally better to join the Army if fighting Bolshevism was their intention.
On the other hand as a “force” (which is what you correctly quote me as writing, but don’t actually address) the German Waffen-SS’s record is not one of being Germany’s spearhead against Bolshevism. In fact, it seems to have been marginally LESS heavily engaged against Bolshevism and marginally MORE heavily engaged against the Western Allies, certainly up to the end of 1944. Indeed, as if to illustrate the point, the massacre Peiper was indicted for took place on the Western Front, not the Eastern.
you state repetedly that you haven’t read anything substantive about Peiper, know nothing of the details of his death, and the circumstances and experiences of his imprisionment and post prison life, yet you opine that he doesn’t deserve pity. How would you know if you have no idea of those things?It is no good claiming my “undeniable ignorance” and then failing to offer a shred of evidence that contradicts the assertion of mine that you are referring to. If it is wrong, explain why.
Quote:
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!
Obviously this statement above shows your undeniable ignorance of the subject matter and it is not difficult to see your overall contempt and hatred for any Waffen SS soldier.
How do you determine if Peiper was contemptible?As I haven’t read the book I can’t comment on the tone of it. Maybe it is contemptuous of Peiper, maybe not. However, it is worth pointing out that if a subject is contemptible then a contemptuous response might actually reinforce objectivity rather than detract from it. I reserve judgement on that.
read the book, Sid.All that you write about the perils of “journalistic bias” and the shaping of facts are well made in the generality. However, I am not too clear how Westermeier plays “fast and loose” with some facts or omits others. Perhaps it is time to read your “review” again.
sure. I know you rarely do read the full content of others’ posts. you spend way to much time bloviating than reading/listening. But here it is:I don’t recall you asking me your last question before, perhaps you can show me where it is?
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:05 am Post subject:
________________________________________
sid guttridge wrote:
Hi Jan Hendrik,
It is already agreed that the facts in the book are not in dispute, just the interpretation placed on them.
Cheers,
Sid.
Just like the facts in Herr Agte's book.
Sid, have you actually read either book yet? I mean, I ve actually put a few bucks in Westemeier's pocket. have you?
Oh, and one more thing... Did you volunteer to join the irregular forces of a rogue, unrecognized white supremacist regime or were you forced into it? Wouldnt the British Army have been a less political option? And the warcrimes you admit to participating in, what should your punishment be? have you ever considered turning yourself in to the Zimbabwean authorities? if not, why not?
Rogue as in rogue nation. Who recognized it after UDI besides South Africa? So you admit you volunteered to serve a racist regime. Why was the British Army not an option? I’ve known Irishmen, Australians, Canadians, and even an American who have served in it. Don’t recall them having a presence there since 1922, 1945, 1867, and 1783 respectively. Didn’t White Rhodesians retain some sort of British citizenship? even if not, if you sought a military career, couldn’t you have found a less political option by moving to the UK? I mean, you live there now--how hard could it have been then? remember this is what you accuse Peiper of.However, I am happy to answer, even though it hasn’t even got indirect relevance to Westermeier’s book. I volunteered to join the regular (not irregular) forces of an unrecognized (not, I think, rogue, as it was always controlled) white supremacist regime (and continued to serve after it became multiracial as Zimbabwe-Rhodesia). I was not in any way forced to do so. The British Army was not an option because it had no presence in Rhodesia.
Really? do you think Peiper may have thought that before he stepped in to the dock?I am particularly interested in the war crimes you claim I admitted participating in. When and where did I do this? I am aware of a number of incidents that were arguably against the laws of war and did a number of things I am not too proud of myself – fortunately for my conscience, none of them fatal - but nothing that I think would find me indicted in a war crimes court.
oooh. lucky for you you weren’t subject to an IMT run by your enemies, and mostly by a powrful minority hellbent on vengeance, whatever the law said.And no, I have never considered turning myself in to the Zimbabwean authorities because I would have no case to answer. And even if I did have a case to answer, part of the Zimbabwe independence settlement terms was a complete amnesty for participants on all sides.
Just me rationalizing your more and more absurd behavior. Besides, it was more polite than suggesting rabies, mad cow, or syphilis.P.S. If I missed anything or double post this, put it down to the Alzheimers you kindly suggested I may be in the earlier stages of! What a great “Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free” Card you have given me there. Thanks.
Insomnia, yes, but I’m still scratching my ass….now wher’d I leave the Preparation H?P.P.S. I hope this post cures the insomnia you say is troubling you. If so, no thanks are necessary. The pleasure is all mine.
-
Paddy Keating
Remarks by Colonel Peiper:
"Wenn wir denn Krieg verlieren, wird es uns wegen dieser Dinge ganz schön dreckig gehen" ("We had better win this war or else we are going to be in big trouble because of these things".) (1943)
"I recognise that after the battles of Normandy my unit was composed mainly of young, fanatical soldiers. A good deal of them had lost their parents, their sisters and brothers during the bombing. They had seen for themselves in Köln thousands of mangled corpses after a terror raid had passed. Their hatred for the enemy was such that I could not always keep it under control."
"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 know is that I took the blame as a good CO should and was punished accordingly."
"History is always written by the victor, and the histories of the losing parties belong to the shrinking circle of those who were there."
"I was a Nazi and I remain one...The Germany of today is no longer a great nation, it has become a province of Europe" (1967)
PK
"Wenn wir denn Krieg verlieren, wird es uns wegen dieser Dinge ganz schön dreckig gehen" ("We had better win this war or else we are going to be in big trouble because of these things".) (1943)
"I recognise that after the battles of Normandy my unit was composed mainly of young, fanatical soldiers. A good deal of them had lost their parents, their sisters and brothers during the bombing. They had seen for themselves in Köln thousands of mangled corpses after a terror raid had passed. Their hatred for the enemy was such that I could not always keep it under control."
"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 know is that I took the blame as a good CO should and was punished accordingly."
"History is always written by the victor, and the histories of the losing parties belong to the shrinking circle of those who were there."
"I was a Nazi and I remain one...The Germany of today is no longer a great nation, it has become a province of Europe" (1967)
PK
-
sniper1shot
- Moderator
- Posts: 1438
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:56 pm
- Location: Canada
-
Paddy Keating
I think that getting this thread closed down is precisely the result Guttridge and others are looking for. I have just brought the thread back on-topic and agree that we should focus upon Jochen Peiper and books about Peiper. I cannot be the only member irritated by the tendency to lock down threads once the usual suspects derail them with their characteristic brand of passive-aggressive, students union-level agitprop and their agreement-by-default tactics. It is not as if they even contribute much in the way of useful, relevant information. Guttridge is beavering away feverishly to wreck this discussion yet he has not even read the books in question. Threatening to lock it down plays right into his hands. Please do not lock it down.
PK
PK
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi M.H.,
1) As far as I am aware, no members of my unit committed warcrimes.
2) I always referred criminal matters involving my men outside the unit to the courts. You see, in Rhodesia the rule of law still applied because we were aiding the civil power.
3) If any of my men had committed a war crime, then yes, I would have been responsible to exactly the same degree that Peiper would have been. This might range from direct culpability through to weak leadership due to failure of command and control. However you look at it, Peiper lies somewhere on that spectrum.
Cheers,
Sid.
1) As far as I am aware, no members of my unit committed warcrimes.
2) I always referred criminal matters involving my men outside the unit to the courts. You see, in Rhodesia the rule of law still applied because we were aiding the civil power.
3) If any of my men had committed a war crime, then yes, I would have been responsible to exactly the same degree that Peiper would have been. This might range from direct culpability through to weak leadership due to failure of command and control. However you look at it, Peiper lies somewhere on that spectrum.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Paddy Keating
Jochen Peiper joined the LSSAH on 16.10.1933. His SS number was 132 496. He was not an NSDAP member. He did not become a party member until political pressure was exerted upon LSSAH and SS-VT officers in the late 1930s. This was fairly typical of men who signed up to the SS and saw themselves as an elite in relation to the SA, for whom they were encouraged to have disdain, a disdain that inevitably affected their view of the NSDAP in general. However, disdain of the NSDAP did not mean that one could not be a committed national socialist. For instance, many people in France share the views expressed by the Front National but consider the FN to be an unwieldy dinosaur run by losers. The same is true of people in other countries throughout Europe. And it was true seventy years ago.
For those charged with policing current European political and social thought, forced for the time being to remain to some extent within "democratic" parameters or at least to seem as if they are doing so, the idea of young people studying the history of the national socialist movements of the 1930s closely enough to realise that party membership is not necessarily the only way of promoting and establishing national socialism is quite perturbing. They do not want people to understand that men and women from all over Western Europe - and elsewhere - who stood up under the swastika flag against the Bolshevik threat were not for the most part the spittle-flecked maniacs of carefully nourished popular lore.
Peiper is sometimes described as a HIAG poster boy. Perhaps there is truth in the description. But whatever Peiper was or wasn't, he was fairly typical of aspiring young men who came of age in Germany during The Depression and who, like tens of millions of people around the world, saw Adolf Hitler as a saviour. Their beliefs cannot be retrospectively dismissed as flawed because it is intellectually dishonest to do so. You must try to imagine yourself in their position at the time in order to have a chance of understanding what it was like for them. Peiper did what he had to do. He did his duty as a soldier like any other soldier. In fact, he did rather more than many, being a Swordsholder. And when the chips were down, he offered himself as a sacrifice if the Americans would let his men go free. He assumed responsibility for what happened in the Ardennes, although he was careful to point out that he did not order the killing of the GIs at the crossroads.
If Westemeier's first biography can be criticised for being too "pro-Peiper", as Westemeier has himself said, his revised biography tries too hard to demonise Peiper when Peiper, truth be known, was neither better nor worse in human terms than the vast majority of men who fought not just for Germany and the Reich but on the other side as well. Westemeier portrays his subject, for instance, as attempting to deny his Nazism after the war when Peiper himself is on record as telling just about anyone who would sit with him long enough that he was a completely unrepentent Nazi. Like many other SS men, Peiper had to be "persuaded" to join the NSDAP but they did not see the "golden pheasants" as relevant to their world view. Jochen Peiper war ein soldat wie andere auch, to paraphrase Konrad Adenauer's 1953 statement about the men of the Waffen-SS. He knew that there was a moral problem with the ethnic cleansing policies, as his remark in 1943 to a comrade shows.
Most of them knew there was a moral problem with the Final Solution, from Himmler downwards. But they implemented it out because it gave the warlords of the SS a pretext for diverting "war essential" resources into the construction of a substantial corporate and financial empire, a kind of virtual state-within-a-state. The war against the Jews was hawked as part of the war for national survival. In the end, it was all about money. When it suited the Hitler regime, they happily overlooked Jewishness. And the people who paid the price were, for the most part, "the working classes". The Jewish bankers and financiers of anti-semitic demonology did not end up in the gas chambers. Of course they didn't. They were part of the tiny elite, the 3% of the world's population that controls 97% of the world wealth. They were members of the Moneybags Club, which includes people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds, the people to whom Hitler & Co sold out the national socialist revolution.
So, to add to my earlier point about Peiper being "hard done by", he and his comrades were "hard done by" to begin with because they fought for a regime that had sold its soul back in the early 1930s. They were screwed by the Hitler regime and then by the victors...and then by their own, guilt-ridden countrymen and Westemeier's book is merely a part of that sordid process. But they did their duty and most of them believed in defending Western Europe and her cultural traditions and values.
PK
For those charged with policing current European political and social thought, forced for the time being to remain to some extent within "democratic" parameters or at least to seem as if they are doing so, the idea of young people studying the history of the national socialist movements of the 1930s closely enough to realise that party membership is not necessarily the only way of promoting and establishing national socialism is quite perturbing. They do not want people to understand that men and women from all over Western Europe - and elsewhere - who stood up under the swastika flag against the Bolshevik threat were not for the most part the spittle-flecked maniacs of carefully nourished popular lore.
Peiper is sometimes described as a HIAG poster boy. Perhaps there is truth in the description. But whatever Peiper was or wasn't, he was fairly typical of aspiring young men who came of age in Germany during The Depression and who, like tens of millions of people around the world, saw Adolf Hitler as a saviour. Their beliefs cannot be retrospectively dismissed as flawed because it is intellectually dishonest to do so. You must try to imagine yourself in their position at the time in order to have a chance of understanding what it was like for them. Peiper did what he had to do. He did his duty as a soldier like any other soldier. In fact, he did rather more than many, being a Swordsholder. And when the chips were down, he offered himself as a sacrifice if the Americans would let his men go free. He assumed responsibility for what happened in the Ardennes, although he was careful to point out that he did not order the killing of the GIs at the crossroads.
If Westemeier's first biography can be criticised for being too "pro-Peiper", as Westemeier has himself said, his revised biography tries too hard to demonise Peiper when Peiper, truth be known, was neither better nor worse in human terms than the vast majority of men who fought not just for Germany and the Reich but on the other side as well. Westemeier portrays his subject, for instance, as attempting to deny his Nazism after the war when Peiper himself is on record as telling just about anyone who would sit with him long enough that he was a completely unrepentent Nazi. Like many other SS men, Peiper had to be "persuaded" to join the NSDAP but they did not see the "golden pheasants" as relevant to their world view. Jochen Peiper war ein soldat wie andere auch, to paraphrase Konrad Adenauer's 1953 statement about the men of the Waffen-SS. He knew that there was a moral problem with the ethnic cleansing policies, as his remark in 1943 to a comrade shows.
Most of them knew there was a moral problem with the Final Solution, from Himmler downwards. But they implemented it out because it gave the warlords of the SS a pretext for diverting "war essential" resources into the construction of a substantial corporate and financial empire, a kind of virtual state-within-a-state. The war against the Jews was hawked as part of the war for national survival. In the end, it was all about money. When it suited the Hitler regime, they happily overlooked Jewishness. And the people who paid the price were, for the most part, "the working classes". The Jewish bankers and financiers of anti-semitic demonology did not end up in the gas chambers. Of course they didn't. They were part of the tiny elite, the 3% of the world's population that controls 97% of the world wealth. They were members of the Moneybags Club, which includes people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds, the people to whom Hitler & Co sold out the national socialist revolution.
So, to add to my earlier point about Peiper being "hard done by", he and his comrades were "hard done by" to begin with because they fought for a regime that had sold its soul back in the early 1930s. They were screwed by the Hitler regime and then by the victors...and then by their own, guilt-ridden countrymen and Westemeier's book is merely a part of that sordid process. But they did their duty and most of them believed in defending Western Europe and her cultural traditions and values.
PK
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi pzrmeyer2,
1) Wrong key. Sorry.
2) I take it that you got clearance from the Moderators here to continue this subject?
3) No vendetta. I raised no names in public here. The invasion of privacy by moderators is a matter of general concern because it could effect us all. Hopefull this whole sorry exercise will ast least have served to tighten up moderation on forums.
4) Nope. I think there should be as many well run military history sites as possible.
5) "Hemmerhoid", "altzheimers", etc. Is the level of debate you prefer? God help Feldgrau if this is you returning on good behaviour!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6) Malmedy.
7) Nope. I don't think that the death sentence for weak command and control is appropriate and have never suggested otherwise. But then, no death sentence was actually carried out, was it?
Nope its not "ok for a misscarriage of victors’ justice to torture, imprison, and forever taint an innocent man as a war criminal". But was Peiper innocent? Westermeier, the court and other evidence mentioned here suggests not.
9) Nope. I never suggested Peiper should pay the price for something he was not responsible for. That would be wrong.
10) Nope. I didn't say the Western Allies didn't on occasion commit massacres. My point was that it was not their governmental policy to do so. By contrast, it was state policy in Nazi Germany and cost millions of lives.
11) You don't have to answer "What is the evidence that fingers any individual or group that killed Peiper?". That is your prerogative. However, your silence leaves us with an absence of evidence here and your proposition totally unsupported.
12) You write "No I have no evidence, just as you have no evidence that he didn’t." Fascinating. So we can all all make wild accusations without evidence? And others can't use lack of evidence as a mitigating point? Doesn't evidence matter to you?
13) There are a number of possibilities as to why Westermeier's opinion changed. Perhaps he made a more mature reassessment of existing evidence? Perhaps it was his original book that was at fault? Perhaps new evidence swayed him? All these and more are possibilities that you did not address. My problem is that out of the almost infinite number of possibilities you chose only to pluck one that ammounted to a personal attack that you admit was without evidence. This implies your "review" was far from a dispassionate appraisal of Westermeier's book. It was am error on your part to include it. Why not just take it out?
14) Certainly you can float almost any idea you want without my permission. That is not in dispute. It is just that this particular suggestion of yours, which you agree lacks any evidence, damages the credibility of your review more than it does Westermeier's.
15) You write "I used rational reason and argument to break down individual statements in the book. Show me where I substituted emotion for R & A." The answer is simple - by making non-evidential attacks on the author. There is nothing rational in stating this for which there is absolutely no evidence unless the reason is to "play the man not the ball". You are bogged down here on this one point. Why defend the indefensible?
Must go prematurely. "Hemmerhoid" problems.
Cheers,
Sid,
1) Wrong key. Sorry.
2) I take it that you got clearance from the Moderators here to continue this subject?
3) No vendetta. I raised no names in public here. The invasion of privacy by moderators is a matter of general concern because it could effect us all. Hopefull this whole sorry exercise will ast least have served to tighten up moderation on forums.
4) Nope. I think there should be as many well run military history sites as possible.
5) "Hemmerhoid", "altzheimers", etc. Is the level of debate you prefer? God help Feldgrau if this is you returning on good behaviour!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6) Malmedy.
7) Nope. I don't think that the death sentence for weak command and control is appropriate and have never suggested otherwise. But then, no death sentence was actually carried out, was it?
Nope its not "ok for a misscarriage of victors’ justice to torture, imprison, and forever taint an innocent man as a war criminal". But was Peiper innocent? Westermeier, the court and other evidence mentioned here suggests not.9) Nope. I never suggested Peiper should pay the price for something he was not responsible for. That would be wrong.
10) Nope. I didn't say the Western Allies didn't on occasion commit massacres. My point was that it was not their governmental policy to do so. By contrast, it was state policy in Nazi Germany and cost millions of lives.
11) You don't have to answer "What is the evidence that fingers any individual or group that killed Peiper?". That is your prerogative. However, your silence leaves us with an absence of evidence here and your proposition totally unsupported.
12) You write "No I have no evidence, just as you have no evidence that he didn’t." Fascinating. So we can all all make wild accusations without evidence? And others can't use lack of evidence as a mitigating point? Doesn't evidence matter to you?
13) There are a number of possibilities as to why Westermeier's opinion changed. Perhaps he made a more mature reassessment of existing evidence? Perhaps it was his original book that was at fault? Perhaps new evidence swayed him? All these and more are possibilities that you did not address. My problem is that out of the almost infinite number of possibilities you chose only to pluck one that ammounted to a personal attack that you admit was without evidence. This implies your "review" was far from a dispassionate appraisal of Westermeier's book. It was am error on your part to include it. Why not just take it out?
14) Certainly you can float almost any idea you want without my permission. That is not in dispute. It is just that this particular suggestion of yours, which you agree lacks any evidence, damages the credibility of your review more than it does Westermeier's.
15) You write "I used rational reason and argument to break down individual statements in the book. Show me where I substituted emotion for R & A." The answer is simple - by making non-evidential attacks on the author. There is nothing rational in stating this for which there is absolutely no evidence unless the reason is to "play the man not the ball". You are bogged down here on this one point. Why defend the indefensible?
Must go prematurely. "Hemmerhoid" problems.
Cheers,
Sid,
And was he tortured? http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=110742sid guttridge wrote:8) Nope its not "ok for a misscarriage of victors’ justice to torture, imprison, and forever taint an innocent man as a war criminal". But was Peiper innocent? Westermeier, the court and other evidence mentioned here suggests not.
Harro wrote: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.
Harro wrote:The argument I am putting forward is that your claim that death sentences in the Malmedy Case were commuted to life imprisonment because they were tortured is incorrect. "Improper practices and mock trials" do not equal "torture" and the commission clearly stated that "the extent to which these [highly questionable] methods were employed cannot be accurately estimated". Thus the convicts were not commuted, as you claim, because "they were tortured. fact". The commission recommended to commute the sentences because "sufficient doubt is cast upon the entire proceeding to make it unwise to proceed with the executions." The argument I am putting forward is also that no doubt some prisoners were abused by their interrogators but certainly not all of them. After the trial Everett and later Aschenauer deliberately started a campaign using false statements about torture to get all "Malmédy Boys" off the hook. For this matter they told their clients exactly what to write when they put their complaints about mistreatment on paper. It is indeed quite obvious. One simply has to compare the individual statements to see the pattern.
BTW, "sending them to bed without their blankey" is actually one of the points in 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.
Are you saying than no Western Allied nation ever had a state policy of massacres? What about US expansion to the West? Those who are responsible for that expansion bloody well knew that the rightful owners of that land (=Indians) had to be eliminated before the land could be exploited whites. And that in my book is indeed a governmetal policy of massacring.sid guttridge wrote: 10) Nope. I didn't say the Western Allies didn't on occasion commit massacres. My point was that it was not their governmental policy to do so. By contrast, it was state policy in Nazi Germany and cost millions of lives.
Or are some victims (beginning with J) just more equal than others?
-
Paddy Keating
Obviously it was okay for the "Eastern Allies" to massacre people in line with governmental policy and it was okay for their "Western Allies" to hand tens if not hundreds of thousands of people over to the "Eastern Allies" in 1945 and 1946 to be disappeared. 
The attempt to murder German prisoners in American internment camps by starving them doesn't count because it was not part of any official or, at least, stated governmental policy. And the massacres committed by the French - who were amongst the "Western Allies" - in places like Setif early in May 1945 don't count because the victims were only Arabs.
Splitting hairs...
PK
The attempt to murder German prisoners in American internment camps by starving them doesn't count because it was not part of any official or, at least, stated governmental policy. And the massacres committed by the French - who were amongst the "Western Allies" - in places like Setif early in May 1945 don't count because the victims were only Arabs. Splitting hairs...
PK
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
-
Cott Tiger
- Associate
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
- Location: England
Paddy,Paddy Keating wrote: The attempt to murder German prisoners in American internment camps by starving them doesn't count because it was not part of any official or, at least, stated governmental policy.
Splitting hairs...
PK
By definition then, the attempted murder of German in the US camps failed then? How on earth did it fail? How hard can it be to starve defeated, unarmed and exhausted men to death? After all, the Germans had perfected the art of mass starvation in their camps for Soviet prisoners. Were the Yanks so dumb that they couldn’t quite work out how to starve people to death? They must have given them enough food to survive by mistake then I presume?
If only they had worked out they had to stop feeding them to kill them, their grand murderous plot would have succeeded eh Paddy?
Splitting hairs…quite..
Regards,
André
Up The Tigers!
-
Paddy Keating
This is getting away from the topic - again - but since you bring it up, some 1.4 million German POWs disappeared after the surrender. Roughly 450,000 of these are accounted for in Soviet files. So it is reasonable to wonder how many of the remainder died in postwar Western "internment camps". 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.
I do not know if you have read Henry Morgenthau's 1945 book Germany Is Our Problem. It is quite revealing. Morgenthau is believed to have been assisted with some chapters by Eisenhower, a view shared by historian Stephen Ambrose. Eisenhower subsequently distributed a thousand copies to key American military officials in the American Zone. One of these officials, General Lucius Clay, stated in October 1945 that "...a large number of refugees have already died of starvation, exposure and disease…. The death rate in many places has increased several fold, and infant mortality is approaching 65 percent in many places. By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe".
Or so the people responsible for the Morgenthau Plan perhaps hoped. Early in 1946, President Truman bowed to mounting pressure from the Senate, Congress and American Public to permit foreign aid organisations to enter Germany. It was until three months later than these organisations were allowed to feed German children. German adults remained on starvation rations of an average of less than 1,500 calories per day, 2,000 calories being the minimum on which a person can subsist for a limited period of time if in reasonable health.
To put this situation in perspective, non-German DPs received an average of 2,300 calories a day. The average daily calorie intake in the USA was 3,200, with 2,900 in the UK and 4,000 in the US armed forces. In addition, the Americans had 4 million Germans put to forced labour and gave hundreds of thousands more to the Bolsheviks, many of whom were never seen again. General George Patton noted in the diary that he was "...also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands (in particular, to France) where many will be starved to death.” and further remarked that it was "...amusing to recall that we fought the revolution in defense of the rights of man and the civil war to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles."
Some people attribute the "missing million" to the demobilisation of Volksturm units and the transfer of German POWs to British and French zones without proper administrative paperwork. No records survive detailing German POWs and DEFs in American hands before September 1945. The Standard Operating Procedure regarding POWs and DEFs required that a copy of the POW Form be sent to the CROWCASS (Central Registry of War Criminals and Security Suspects) but this system was deemed impractical and roughly 8 million POW forms were destroyed.
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, which prompted disapproving scrutiny by some American politicians and people, leading to the Presidential decision to allow independent observers and aid workers into the areas in question...presumably once all the evidence had been removed.
Of course, the Germans deserved it, didn't they? Just as Jochen Peiper deserved what he got. Sure they did. It was all their fault.
PK
I do not know if you have read Henry Morgenthau's 1945 book Germany Is Our Problem. It is quite revealing. Morgenthau is believed to have been assisted with some chapters by Eisenhower, a view shared by historian Stephen Ambrose. Eisenhower subsequently distributed a thousand copies to key American military officials in the American Zone. One of these officials, General Lucius Clay, stated in October 1945 that "...a large number of refugees have already died of starvation, exposure and disease…. The death rate in many places has increased several fold, and infant mortality is approaching 65 percent in many places. By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe".
Or so the people responsible for the Morgenthau Plan perhaps hoped. Early in 1946, President Truman bowed to mounting pressure from the Senate, Congress and American Public to permit foreign aid organisations to enter Germany. It was until three months later than these organisations were allowed to feed German children. German adults remained on starvation rations of an average of less than 1,500 calories per day, 2,000 calories being the minimum on which a person can subsist for a limited period of time if in reasonable health.
To put this situation in perspective, non-German DPs received an average of 2,300 calories a day. The average daily calorie intake in the USA was 3,200, with 2,900 in the UK and 4,000 in the US armed forces. In addition, the Americans had 4 million Germans put to forced labour and gave hundreds of thousands more to the Bolsheviks, many of whom were never seen again. General George Patton noted in the diary that he was "...also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands (in particular, to France) where many will be starved to death.” and further remarked that it was "...amusing to recall that we fought the revolution in defense of the rights of man and the civil war to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles."
Some people attribute the "missing million" to the demobilisation of Volksturm units and the transfer of German POWs to British and French zones without proper administrative paperwork. No records survive detailing German POWs and DEFs in American hands before September 1945. The Standard Operating Procedure regarding POWs and DEFs required that a copy of the POW Form be sent to the CROWCASS (Central Registry of War Criminals and Security Suspects) but this system was deemed impractical and roughly 8 million POW forms were destroyed.
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, which prompted disapproving scrutiny by some American politicians and people, leading to the Presidential decision to allow independent observers and aid workers into the areas in question...presumably once all the evidence had been removed.
Of course, the Germans deserved it, didn't they? Just as Jochen Peiper deserved what he got. Sure they did. It was all their fault.
PK