Malmedy

[Bill D.]

did we ever massacre German soldiers?

There were incidents of the killing of prisoners of war on every side. These were most often isolated episodes carried out by small units in the aftermath of battle, involving small numbers of enemy soldiers.

However, the Japanese carried out systematic murder of prisoners as, for example, on the Bataan Death March, in the war on China and Korea, in the execution of captured airmen from the Doolittle raid, and so on.

Similiarly, the German army high command issued the "Commisar Order" prior to the invasion of Russia. This order directed that Red Army commisars, when captured, were to be shot immediately. This order, for the deliberate killing of prisoners of war, was one of the reasons for the execution of Field Marshall Keitel after the war. It was a violation of the laws of war on the highest possible level, making murder a matter of policy at the level of the highest command.

[TMurray]

You should double check your sources on being allowed to fire at fleeing POW's. As soon as one is disarmed or surrenders, he/she is now classified as a non-combatant, even if they run away. They only again become a combatant if they pick up a weapon, or try to assault you hand to hand. Hence, a lot of the hardships in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Every side killed prisoners. Both sides on the Western front were better about it, but it still happened. Pick up Max Hasting's Armegeddon. He cuts right down to the truth of what happened and gives you some good insight and analysis.

Similarly, the Allies probably should have had war crime charges (and would have if they had lost) for the 'city busting' bombing campaign

You are incorrect. Under Article 42 of the 'Third Geneva Convention' (1925), the Detaining Power may fire upon escaping prisoners (unarmed or not) so long as a warning is communicated. Here's the wording


Article 42 The use of weapons against prisoners of war, especially against those who are escaping or attempting to escape, shall constitute an extreme measure, which shall always be preceded by warnings appropriate to the circumstances.

[TMurray]

No Peiper was not even at the place when the shooting took place so is is written in the book. There is nothing mentioned that any survivors was taken in by Peiper.

Jürg

Jurg is correct, Peiper had already left the area, he was not present at the time of the Malmedy incident.

[TMurray]

did we ever massacre German soldiers?

Troops of the US Army 45th Division under George Patton killed 76 unarmed Italian and German POWs at Biscari in Sicily in July-August 1943.
One US Sergeant was later indicted, he used the defense that Patton had told his men to "..kill him (the enemy) and show him no mercy".

[Josh Beckett]

I read about that and it was 74 italians and 2 Germans. I am a kid and have more emotion than those animals. I understand that those were 76 human beings with lives and familys who were so close to being able to see there kids but because of some idiots it didnt happen.

[TMurray]

What caused the SS to start killing US service members in Malmedy during the massacre?

To revert to your original question, the actual event that triggered the Malmedy Incident will never be known. US sources claim it was a Massacre of unarmed POW's, the Germans state that they shot at escaping prisoners (although autopsies show that many of the dead had presumably been shot at close range, after the initial gunfire had ceased). Personally I do not beleive the SS were "following an order to shoot prisoners" to avoid such prisoners delaying their advance. Whatever the catalyst, it was a tragic event and was mirrored by similar incidents committed by both sides.

[ottodog8]

This Malmedy stuff is getting old. I am tired of the apologists and admirers of the Germans making excuses (attempting to escape, picking up arms and resisting, etc. etc. etc.). Call it what it is - the Germans were pushing hard for the Meuse, didn't want to be slowed down by POWs, so they got rid of them. Anyone who believes the "attempting to escape" fariytale can stand in that field with their hands up and then start running, and I will sit on the road with an MG42 and we will see how far you get.
The massacre most certainly did stiffen resistance. After the news spread, surrender was no longer an option. I knew a veteran of the 400th Armored FA who heard about it the next day, and it definitely made an impression on him.
It also had a very negative effect on the survival rate of SS captured by the Americans. I knew intimately 3 other combat vets of the ETO who independently told me after they heard about the massacre SS prisoners were segregated and shot as a matter of routine."Take these prisoners back to the stockade and be back in 5 minutes". One vet, who fought in the 329th Infantry of the 83rd Division became quite animated when I mentioned the reputation and fighting qualities of the SS. "Yeah, they were tough, but when we were rounding them up after we cleaned out a town, they s--t their pants like anyone else. They knew what was coming and they got it"
These vets all knew the difference between SS and regular Wehrmacht troops. As one put it, "the average kraut probably didn't want to be there any more than I did, but the SS were different story".
Steve

[TMurray]

This Malmedy stuff is getting old. I am tired of the apologists and admirers of the Germans making excuses (attempting to escape, picking up arms and resisting, etc. etc. etc.). Call it what it is - the Germans were pushing hard for the Meuse, didn't want to be slowed down by POWs, so they got rid of them. Anyone who believes the "attempting to escape" fariytale can stand in that field with their hands up and then start running, and I will sit on the road with an MG42 and we will see how far you get.
The massacre most certainly did stiffen resistance. After the news spread, surrender was no longer an option. I knew a veteran of the 400th Armored FA who heard about it the next day, and it definitely made an impression on him.
It also had a very negative effect on the survival rate of SS captured by the Americans. I knew intimately 3 other combat vets of the ETO who independently told me after they heard about the massacre SS prisoners were segregated and shot as a matter of routine."Take these prisoners back to the stockade and be back in 5 minutes". One vet, who fought in the 329th Infantry of the 83rd Division became quite animated when I mentioned the reputation and fighting qualities of the SS. "Yeah, they were tough, but when we were rounding them up after we cleaned out a town, they s--t their pants like anyone else. They knew what was coming and they got it"
These vets all knew the difference between SS and regular Wehrmacht troops. As one put it, "the average kraut probably didn't want to be there any more than I did, but the SS were different story".
Steve

Were you there at the Crossroads in December 1944? I think not! Do you know for a fact that escaping US troops did not trigger reprisals by the SS? I think not. Yes a tragedy occurred but you do not know the real circumstances of this event, you should not be so narrow minded and open your mind to the possibilities that may have triggered this incident.

[Bill D.]

Thomas...

Unfortunately, you do not seem to be very familiar with the history of this episode.

I suggest that before you adopt the "escaping prisoners" silliness, you contact the United States National Archives, and aquire a copy of the full file on the Malmedy trial that was conducted after the war.

Within the documents you will find:

1. Statements given by SS personnel, both those who were present and those with relevant information;
2. Statements by American survivors;
3. Statements and reports from Allied War Crimes officers who investigated the incident before any charges were brought;
4. Relevant documentary evidence, to include photographs of the bodies as they were found, and upon reviewing these particular materials someone who was truly interested in the facts might wonder why the bodies of the murderd soldiers reflected frontal wounds (indicating that they were not running away from their killers), why they fell in groups, rather than in scattered singles or pairs, as would have occurred with fleeing soldiers, and why many of the dead were killed with close proximity gunshot wounds, which could be nothing else but "coup de grace" gunshots to wounded prisoners;
5. The transcript of the full trial, setting forth the sworn testimony of victims and defendants.

Once you have familiarized yourself with the facts, you will be in a better position to make a judgment, and you should do so before castigating someone for failing to keep an open mind as to "other possibilities", when there is a full and extensive legal record on the event. I should note that the trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the American legal system, including the presumption that the accused were innocent until proven guilty, and the accused were provided with qualified defense attorneys who, the record reflects, acted vigorously on their behalf.

[TMurray]

Thomas...

Unfortunately, you do not seem to be very familiar with the history of this episode.

I suggest that before you adopt the "escaping prisoners" silliness, you contact the United States National Archives, and aquire a copy of the full file on the Malmedy trial that was conducted after the war.

Within the documents you will find:

1. Statements given by SS personnel, both those who were present and those with relevant information;
2. Statements by American survivors;
3. Statements and reports from Allied War Crimes officers who investigated the incident before any charges were brought;
4. Relevant documentary evidence, to include photographs of the bodies as they were found, and upon reviewing these particular materials someone who was truly interested in the facts might wonder why the bodies of the murderd soldiers reflected frontal wounds (indicating that they were not running away from their killers), why they fell in groups, rather than in scattered singles or pairs, as would have occurred with fleeing soldiers, and why many of the dead were killed with close proximity gunshot wounds, which could be nothing else but "coup de grace" gunshots to wounded prisoners;
5. The transcript of the full trial, setting forth the sworn testimony of victims and defendants.

Once you have familiarized yourself with the facts, you will be in a better position to make a judgment, and you should do so before castigating someone for failing to keep an open mind as to "other possibilities", when there is a full and extensive legal record on the event. I should note that the trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the American legal system, including the presumption that the accused were innocent until proven guilty, and the accused were provided with qualified defense attorneys who, the record reflects, acted vigorously on their behalf.

I am more than familiar with this episode. I have read the documents of US v Valentin Bersin et al perhaps there are a number of points you may like to consider. Yes the trial of the accused was conducted in accordance with US legal principles, and in accordnace with US legal procedure the statements of the SS were extracted under duress (beatings etc) a fact which the US now acknowledges as true and was reflected in all death sentences being commuted to lesser penalties. As to the survivor statements, whatelse would they say? Again it seems people toe the faithful partyline with which they grew up and accept as gospel. My point is that no-one knows the true circumstances, the statements of the SS were made under duress and those of the survivors reflect the circumstances that showed their actions in the best light. It was a tragic event which was skillfully manipulated for propaganda purposes at the time but this, of course, is just my own opinion.

[Bill D.]

As to the survivor statements, whatelse would they say?

This is precisely the same tactic taken by Holocaust deniers. The possibility that the survivors of the massacre might have told what actually happened is disregarded with the "Well, what else would they say" tactic of the deniers.

This speaks volume about your "consider the possibilities" approach.

Your selective use of material is also the same tactic. Quite sad.

I have read the documents of US v Valentin Bersin et al...

Well, as one who has reviewed the complete file in its entirety in the National Archives, as one who spoke with one of the actual survivors, and as one who spoke at length with a member of the Army legal team that reviewed the convictions, I know that you are in fact NOT familiar with the matter in its entirety by any stretch of the imagination. If you have reviewed "documents", they are obviously only those that fit your very clear agenda.

Personally, those who attempt to corrupt the historical record with this sort of "Well, what else would they say?" and "You weren't there" garbage (while at the same time rejecting as lies the sworn testimony of those who WERE there) is nothing but revisionist refuse.

[Bill D.]

I shall add one more point....

...the statements of the SS were extracted under duress (beatings etc) a fact which the US now acknowledges as true and was reflected in all death sentences being commuted to lesser penalties.

This statement alone clearly reflects both a lack of knowledge and the agenda of the writer.

Before he died I spent several days at the home of Lt. Col. William Denson, a man who was a graduate before the war of both West Point and Harvard Law School. Denson was an instructor at West Point in military law for a part of the war, until he was sent to Europe to serve as a member of the team investigating and prosecuting or defending at the military tribunals.

After the war Denson was the chief prosecutor at all four of the concentration camp trials that were conducted by the American Army, including the Dachau trial and the Mauthausen trial. He reviewed the charges that were being considered against SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny, and was ordered to write an opinion as to whether Skorzeny should be put on trial by the American military, specifically for actions during the Battle of the Bulge. Denson told me that his response after reviewing the Skorzeny file was
"Try him? We ought to hire him!"
He found no evidence of any violation by Skorzeny of the articles of war, and no charges were ever brought by the American government against Skorzeny.

The United States Supreme Court had ruled that foreign nationals convicted of war crimes had no right to appeal their sentences in American civil courts. However, the military had a review process of which convicted defendants could avail themselves, and it was Denson who was assigned the task of reviewing the sentences of the Malmedy defendants. Among the claims of the defendants, in statements that were almost word-for-word identical, was the assertion that their previously given confessions had been coerced. Denson told me that he had reccomended after his review that ALL of the convictions be overturned, and that the defendants be given a new trial.
However, this had nothing to do with the allegation that confessions were "coerced" (although this accusation fits well into the revisionist/apologist agenda). It was entirely due to the fact that a matter of criminal procedure had, in Denson's opinion, not been followed. Specifically, he believed that it was incorrect to have used the confessions of various defendants against other defendants, as well as against themselves. This is a legal point about which I could go on at greater length, but the legal theories and precedents are not really relevant to the point, that being the clear mistatement about the convitions having been altered because of allegations of coercion. The last time I heard anyone try to advance this claim it was Senator Joseph McCarthy, in a statement that he had the temerity to introduce in the Senate.

Denson informed me that the modifications of sentences had far more to do with the ongoing Cold War, and the desire of the American government to put the war crimes trials behind.

The claim that the accused were subjected to "torture" to obtain confessions can, however, be found on websites of revisionist history without any difficulty.

[TMurray]

This is precisely the same tactic taken by Holocaust deniers. The possibility that the survivors of the massacre might have told what actually happened is disregarded with the "Well, what else would they say" tactic of the deniers.

This speaks volume about your "consider the possibilities" approach.

Your selective use of material is also the same tactic. Quite sad.



Well, as one who has reviewed the complete file in its entirety in the National Archives, as one who spoke with one of the actual survivors, and as one who spoke at length with a member of the Army legal team that reviewed the convictions, I know that you are in fact NOT familiar with the matter in its entirety by any stretch of the imagination. If you have reviewed "documents", they are obviously only those that fit your very clear agenda.

Personally, those who attempt to corrupt the historical record with this sort of "Well, what else would they say?" and "You weren't there" garbage (while at the same time rejecting as lies the sworn testimony of those who WERE there) is nothing but revisionist refuse.

WOW!! Now that's a rational response. Holocaust denier? Selective use of material? Corrupt the historical record? Revisionist? Nazi apologist? Just because I had the temerity to suggest that escaping POWs might have triggered Malmedy I'm suddenly tainted as a Holocaust denier, Revisionist etc??? Man, go smoke some more crack, now you're comparing me to McCarthy?! A completely unbalanced response from an unbalanced individual. Perish the thought had I mentioned 'mock trials' or Willis Everett's name.

[Bill D.]

When historical material is selectively used; when sworn testimony is rejected, and survivors of a murderous massacre are called liars (for that, after all, is what you did, with your "What else would they say?" rejection of sworn testimony by both perpetrators and victims), when you claim to be "familiar" with material which you clearly are not, when you demand that others open their eyes to possibilities and attack them because they "were not there", while you dismiss the testimony and reports of those who WERE there, when you pull out the old chestnut of "the confessions were coerced", a statement made by Senator Joseph McCarthy...well, if those same preposterous tactics are used by others, do not be surprised when you are compared to them, and if your ridiculous claims mirror those made by McCarthy, do not be surprised if you are compared to him.

If you lie down with dogs, do not be surprised when you get up with fleas.

[Theodor]

This is not a good discussion. The story of that tragic episode is contradictory, far too much is unknown and probably the 100% truth will never be known, so there is no place for calling "revisionists" the people who do not belive in one and only explanation.

if there was one well documented truth - then the R-word is right in place. But as long as there is even a little controversy about the events /and there is lots of controversy!/, there will be many points of view and there is nothing wrong about it.