Hummel & Flakpanzer Question (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter erich
- Start date
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 18,124
By the way, welcome aboard Erich.
OzDigger
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,515
It's true that initially this Division was considered the worst as far as war crimes are concerned but few of the originals were alive after 1941 as it had a high casualty rate. The entire Division was turned over to the Russians after surrendering to US forces and few survived that.
That particular Deaths Head insignia was also used as a collar badge by ALL SS units. After Malmedy, (which was not a massacre if you read the facts) any soldier captured with a black uniform was unlikely to survive capture. Sadly most German tank crews and mechanics etc including those working on aircraft had black uniforms, they often suffered the same fate.
That particular Deaths Head insignia was also used as a collar badge by ALL SS units. After Malmedy, (which was not a massacre if you read the facts) any soldier captured with a black uniform was unlikely to survive capture. Sadly most German tank crews and mechanics etc including those working on aircraft had black uniforms, they often suffered the same fate.
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 18,124
Oz,
What facts are you referring to? I have heard testimony by Allied survivors on the history channel that states it was a massacre, and I have heard German accounts denying it was a massacre. Is there any definitive account?
What facts are you referring to? I have heard testimony by Allied survivors on the history channel that states it was a massacre, and I have heard German accounts denying it was a massacre. Is there any definitive account?
OzDigger
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,515
Hi Louis. I'm a confirmed pragmatist at the best of times, and as I'm not an American or a German I imagine I may be less biased than some.
Much depends on your interpretation of a massacre. Mine being that none or at most a handful of people remain alive, say like the Battle of Little Big Horn. Whereas over 40 remained alive after the incident at Malmedy.
I suspect we will never know the full details but much info can be obtained from the web. However you have to sift between the sources, some being Neo Nazi that say it was only a battle and some US sources keeping to the WWII full on massacre rumour.
My personal feeling was that it was not a planned attempt at extermination. I suspect some (up to 150 by some accounts) American prisoners were assembled on vacant land following the battle then paniced for some reason with some attempting to take weapons off the Germans and several running. One or two warning shots were fired causing more prsioners to run then a number of German soldiers opened up on the prisoners causing more deaths and injuries to those running as well as those remaining.
The critically injured were then shot. Which was standard practice for Germans with their own troops, especially those that served on the Eastern Front. German medical facilities were less than adequate at that stage of the war. The bodies were then left where they were because the Germans were busy with Autumn Mist (The Battle of the Bulge) and were not recovered by the Americans for another four weeks.
There were a number of Belgian civilians that observed the events and most say that's what happened. So IMO the scene in the movie "Saints and Soldiers" is likely to be a more accurate version than the one in "Battle of the Bulge". However many people have seen the later movie and few have seen the first, hence the skewed opinions.
Much depends on your interpretation of a massacre. Mine being that none or at most a handful of people remain alive, say like the Battle of Little Big Horn. Whereas over 40 remained alive after the incident at Malmedy.
I suspect we will never know the full details but much info can be obtained from the web. However you have to sift between the sources, some being Neo Nazi that say it was only a battle and some US sources keeping to the WWII full on massacre rumour.
My personal feeling was that it was not a planned attempt at extermination. I suspect some (up to 150 by some accounts) American prisoners were assembled on vacant land following the battle then paniced for some reason with some attempting to take weapons off the Germans and several running. One or two warning shots were fired causing more prsioners to run then a number of German soldiers opened up on the prisoners causing more deaths and injuries to those running as well as those remaining.
The critically injured were then shot. Which was standard practice for Germans with their own troops, especially those that served on the Eastern Front. German medical facilities were less than adequate at that stage of the war. The bodies were then left where they were because the Germans were busy with Autumn Mist (The Battle of the Bulge) and were not recovered by the Americans for another four weeks.
There were a number of Belgian civilians that observed the events and most say that's what happened. So IMO the scene in the movie "Saints and Soldiers" is likely to be a more accurate version than the one in "Battle of the Bulge". However many people have seen the later movie and few have seen the first, hence the skewed opinions.
Last edited:
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 18,124
Oz,
It wouldn't suprise me if your assessment is correct, although at that point in the war, there were a lot of reported atrocities aimed at prisoners by troops from both sides. Don Burgett, a Veteran from the 101st Airborne, gives a couple of accounts of attrocities he witnessed by U.S. troops in his books. I thought, however, that there was a specific order issued during the Battle of the Bulge by one of the German commanders not to waste time taking prisoners. I this order is documented, Malmady might indeed have been intentional, regardless of your definition of a massacre.
It wouldn't suprise me if your assessment is correct, although at that point in the war, there were a lot of reported atrocities aimed at prisoners by troops from both sides. Don Burgett, a Veteran from the 101st Airborne, gives a couple of accounts of attrocities he witnessed by U.S. troops in his books. I thought, however, that there was a specific order issued during the Battle of the Bulge by one of the German commanders not to waste time taking prisoners. I this order is documented, Malmady might indeed have been intentional, regardless of your definition of a massacre.
Panzer
Corporal
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 561
This is an interesting argument. I don’t think there is much of a question that there was a massacre at the crossroads at Malmedy on that Christmas Eve in 1944. I think the better question is: was it a premeditated massacre?
Since that fateful day, this has remained one of the most emotionally charged arguments about WWII history. Just look recently at MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s emotionally charged commentary on Bill O'Reilly and Fox about the Malmedy Massacre.
I would encourage those interested in what actually happened at Malmedy to read as much about the incident as you can and formulate your own opinions. A good place to start is with Michael Reynolds' article from a 2003 issue of “World War II” magazine about Malmedy. You can find it at www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3030591.html
Semper Fi!
Rick
Since that fateful day, this has remained one of the most emotionally charged arguments about WWII history. Just look recently at MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s emotionally charged commentary on Bill O'Reilly and Fox about the Malmedy Massacre.
I would encourage those interested in what actually happened at Malmedy to read as much about the incident as you can and formulate your own opinions. A good place to start is with Michael Reynolds' article from a 2003 issue of “World War II” magazine about Malmedy. You can find it at www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3030591.html
Semper Fi!
Rick
OzDigger
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,515
Thanks for the link Rick, I believe I have read that article before. I also have an interesting book called "Battle of the Bulge" published by the After The Battle people and it has similar quotes together with a number of pics and maps on this subject as well as the entire campaign.
I was just checking out some definitions of 'massacre' and most say it's the pre-meditated murder of a group of people, usually civilians. I feel the 'Malmady Tragedy' would be a more appropriate title. What convinces me most that is was not pre-planned is the fact that so many prisoners were left alive. Which is not usually the way with such things.
In the movie "The Battle of the Bulge" there were only a few soldiers depicted escaping which I suspect contributed to the pre-meditated massacre legend in the US and elsewhere.
I was just checking out some definitions of 'massacre' and most say it's the pre-meditated murder of a group of people, usually civilians. I feel the 'Malmady Tragedy' would be a more appropriate title. What convinces me most that is was not pre-planned is the fact that so many prisoners were left alive. Which is not usually the way with such things.
In the movie "The Battle of the Bulge" there were only a few soldiers depicted escaping which I suspect contributed to the pre-meditated massacre legend in the US and elsewhere.
Chuck Harris
Memoriam Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 528
OZ
You can't use a movie as facts for info. The SS had no food, gas to transport or anyway to care for prisoners. They were dead weight and in their way.
This was the real world at the time.
Panzer
Corporal
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 561
Oz,
I agree that the killings were not premeditated. The confusion about what was actually going on right before the shooting started created a "fog" on both sides. I guess this is why Clausewitz calls it "the fog of war."
I tend to put more credence in the statements and testimony of the survivors rather on those emotional accounts from the outside looking in. Forty-three of the Americans taken prisoner that day managed to escape and lived to tell about it. Here are the facts as accounted for by several of the American Survivors:
Fact: The incident which became known as "the Malmedy Massacre" happened at the Baugnez Crossroads in the Ardennes Forest in Belgium on December 17, 1944, the second day of fighting in the Battle of the Bulge.
Fact: After surrendering to a German armored column the American Soldiers were disarmed and assembled in a field just south of the crossroads for the customary search for documents and hidden weapons.
Fact: Several of the survivors told investigators that they saw two or three of the Americans trying to make a break for it before any shots were fired.
Fact: Germans fired shots at the escaping Americans. Most survivors state that two or three shots were fired. (One of the three did escape and also testified to this fact). At this point there were no war crimes committed as it is permissible under Law of War to shoot at escaping prisoners.
Fact: These initial shots at the fleeing Americans created a commotion among the prisoners and many, from their vantage points, did not know what was going on.
Fact: Survivors stated that many Americans pushed and shoved their way as the jostled through the ranks. This created further confusion among both the Germans and Americans about what was actually happening.
Fact: Survivors stated that they could hear one of the American Officers shouting "Standfast" to the stirring Americans as disorder escalated through the ranks.
Opinion: The fact that an American Officer would shout “Standfast” indicates to me that the Germans were not firing into the American ranks at this stage of the incident. If the Germans were firing into the American ranks with machineguns, the American Officer would have probably shouted something like “Run” or “Hit the deck.”
Fact: Germans opened up on the stirring Americans with machinegun and rifle fire. Note: At this point there is much conjecture about further breaking of ranks and attempts to overpower the German soldiers who were searching the Americans and whether the next series of shots were warning shots that created a chain reaction of firing.
Fact: Germans walked among the fallen Americans and administered the coup de grace shots to dying Americans. This action was a violation of the Law of War and clearly a war crime.
Fact: Earlier on the 17th, Lt. Col. Jochen Peiper's men sent scores of American prisoners to the rear in the normal manner during their advance. This belies the take-no-prisoners theory. Additionally, attempts by the American prosecutors to produce written evidence of such an order for use at the Dachau war crimes trial came to nothing.
Semper Fi!
Rick
I agree that the killings were not premeditated. The confusion about what was actually going on right before the shooting started created a "fog" on both sides. I guess this is why Clausewitz calls it "the fog of war."
I tend to put more credence in the statements and testimony of the survivors rather on those emotional accounts from the outside looking in. Forty-three of the Americans taken prisoner that day managed to escape and lived to tell about it. Here are the facts as accounted for by several of the American Survivors:
Fact: The incident which became known as "the Malmedy Massacre" happened at the Baugnez Crossroads in the Ardennes Forest in Belgium on December 17, 1944, the second day of fighting in the Battle of the Bulge.
Fact: After surrendering to a German armored column the American Soldiers were disarmed and assembled in a field just south of the crossroads for the customary search for documents and hidden weapons.
Fact: Several of the survivors told investigators that they saw two or three of the Americans trying to make a break for it before any shots were fired.
Fact: Germans fired shots at the escaping Americans. Most survivors state that two or three shots were fired. (One of the three did escape and also testified to this fact). At this point there were no war crimes committed as it is permissible under Law of War to shoot at escaping prisoners.
Fact: These initial shots at the fleeing Americans created a commotion among the prisoners and many, from their vantage points, did not know what was going on.
Fact: Survivors stated that many Americans pushed and shoved their way as the jostled through the ranks. This created further confusion among both the Germans and Americans about what was actually happening.
Fact: Survivors stated that they could hear one of the American Officers shouting "Standfast" to the stirring Americans as disorder escalated through the ranks.
Opinion: The fact that an American Officer would shout “Standfast” indicates to me that the Germans were not firing into the American ranks at this stage of the incident. If the Germans were firing into the American ranks with machineguns, the American Officer would have probably shouted something like “Run” or “Hit the deck.”
Fact: Germans opened up on the stirring Americans with machinegun and rifle fire. Note: At this point there is much conjecture about further breaking of ranks and attempts to overpower the German soldiers who were searching the Americans and whether the next series of shots were warning shots that created a chain reaction of firing.
Fact: Germans walked among the fallen Americans and administered the coup de grace shots to dying Americans. This action was a violation of the Law of War and clearly a war crime.
Fact: Earlier on the 17th, Lt. Col. Jochen Peiper's men sent scores of American prisoners to the rear in the normal manner during their advance. This belies the take-no-prisoners theory. Additionally, attempts by the American prosecutors to produce written evidence of such an order for use at the Dachau war crimes trial came to nothing.
Semper Fi!
Rick
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,786
From the article quoted by Rick, here are the author's conclusions, taken verbatim:
In summary, it can be said that there is no evidence to support the idea of a premeditated massacre--particularly in view of the fact that over half the Americans in the field survived both the main shooting and the administration of coup de grâce shots by the Germans who entered the field. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that the main body of the Kampfgruppe mistook the men in the field for a fresh combat unit, or that there was a mass escape attempt that caused the Germans to open fire.
So how do we explain the shootings at the Baugnez crossroads on December 17, 1944? There seem to be only two reasonable explanations. The first is that it started in response to a specific escape attempt. Someone saw two or three Americans make the break described in a sworn statement made to Lieutenant Schumacker in October 1945; that person then opened fire and this in turn caused a commotion in the field as some of the prisoners tried to push through their comrades to the west. But this movement, and the fact that at least one and probably two Americans had by then escaped from the field, only exacerbated the situation, and other Germans in the vicinity then fired. Even if this theory is accepted, however, it in no way excuses the deliberate killing of wounded prisoners by those Germans who then entered the field.
The other explanation is that faced with the problem of what to do with so many prisoners, someone made a deliberate decision to shoot them. And it is significant that the majority of the American survivors spoke of a single German taking deliberate aim with his pistol and then firing two shots at the prisoners. The sheer number of Americans in the field and the fact that they were standing in a group meant that many were physically shielded by the bodies of their comrades. This explanation would then require that, after the main shooting, it was necessary to send soldiers into the field to finish off the survivors.
On May 16, 1946, Peiper and 70 members of his Kampfgruppe, plus his army commander, chief of staff and corps commander, were arraigned before a U.S. military court in the former concentration camp at Dachau, charged that they did "willfully, deliberately and wrongfully permit, encourage, aid, abet and participate in the killing, shooting, ill treatment, abuse and torture of members of the armed forces of the United States of America." The location chosen for the trial and the number of defendants was clearly significant, and it surprised no one when all the Germans were found guilty. The court of six American officers presided over by a brigadier general took an average of less than three minutes to consider each case. Forty-three of the defendants, including Peiper, Christ, Rumpf, Sievers and Sternebeck, were sentenced to death by hanging (Poetschke had been killed in March 1945), 22 to life imprisonment and the rest to between 10 and 20 years. "The Law of the Victors," as it has been called in postwar Germany, had prevailed. But none of the death sentences was ever carried out, and all the prisoners had been released by Christmas 1956. Peiper was the last to leave prison. Sadly, incomplete and rushed investigations, suspicions about the methods used to obtain confessions, and inadequate or flawed evidence ensured that guilty men escaped proper punishment, and there can be little doubt that some innocent men were punished during the trial. In the final analysis, justice itself became another casualty of the incident.
In summary, it can be said that there is no evidence to support the idea of a premeditated massacre--particularly in view of the fact that over half the Americans in the field survived both the main shooting and the administration of coup de grâce shots by the Germans who entered the field. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that the main body of the Kampfgruppe mistook the men in the field for a fresh combat unit, or that there was a mass escape attempt that caused the Germans to open fire.
So how do we explain the shootings at the Baugnez crossroads on December 17, 1944? There seem to be only two reasonable explanations. The first is that it started in response to a specific escape attempt. Someone saw two or three Americans make the break described in a sworn statement made to Lieutenant Schumacker in October 1945; that person then opened fire and this in turn caused a commotion in the field as some of the prisoners tried to push through their comrades to the west. But this movement, and the fact that at least one and probably two Americans had by then escaped from the field, only exacerbated the situation, and other Germans in the vicinity then fired. Even if this theory is accepted, however, it in no way excuses the deliberate killing of wounded prisoners by those Germans who then entered the field.
The other explanation is that faced with the problem of what to do with so many prisoners, someone made a deliberate decision to shoot them. And it is significant that the majority of the American survivors spoke of a single German taking deliberate aim with his pistol and then firing two shots at the prisoners. The sheer number of Americans in the field and the fact that they were standing in a group meant that many were physically shielded by the bodies of their comrades. This explanation would then require that, after the main shooting, it was necessary to send soldiers into the field to finish off the survivors.
On May 16, 1946, Peiper and 70 members of his Kampfgruppe, plus his army commander, chief of staff and corps commander, were arraigned before a U.S. military court in the former concentration camp at Dachau, charged that they did "willfully, deliberately and wrongfully permit, encourage, aid, abet and participate in the killing, shooting, ill treatment, abuse and torture of members of the armed forces of the United States of America." The location chosen for the trial and the number of defendants was clearly significant, and it surprised no one when all the Germans were found guilty. The court of six American officers presided over by a brigadier general took an average of less than three minutes to consider each case. Forty-three of the defendants, including Peiper, Christ, Rumpf, Sievers and Sternebeck, were sentenced to death by hanging (Poetschke had been killed in March 1945), 22 to life imprisonment and the rest to between 10 and 20 years. "The Law of the Victors," as it has been called in postwar Germany, had prevailed. But none of the death sentences was ever carried out, and all the prisoners had been released by Christmas 1956. Peiper was the last to leave prison. Sadly, incomplete and rushed investigations, suspicions about the methods used to obtain confessions, and inadequate or flawed evidence ensured that guilty men escaped proper punishment, and there can be little doubt that some innocent men were punished during the trial. In the final analysis, justice itself became another casualty of the incident.
King & Country
Captain
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
- Messages
- 5,091
Hi Guys,
Very interesting “thread” on this one...In my opinion a “massacre” is when unarmed civilians or prisoners-of-war are deliberately shot down (or killed in any other way) and no survivors are left by the perpetrators to “tell the tale”.
Under that definition the Malmedy “incident” was definitely a “massacre” no matter how it originally started whether by accident or deliberate. Fleeing POW’s were “hunted-down” and shot. Wounded...whether lightly or severely were then shot and killed.
Custer’s last battle at the Little Big Horn was definitely not a “massacre”. Custer and the 7th.Cavalry were “armed and dangerous” and attacked the Indian encampment. The fact that they bit off more than they could chew led to their own demise and no survivors does not in itself constitute a “massacre”.
Unfortunately in war real massacres happen all too frequently. During World War Two both sides committed such acts -- Allied and Axis. However there is no doubt that while British and American forces committed occasional war crimes on relatively rare occasions (and small scale) and without official approval. This could not be said of the Germans and Japanese. On the Axis side large scale massacres were both officially and unofficially sanctioned and carried out on civilians and prisoners alike throughout the war.
Our Russian allies, I would say, were somewhere in between the British and American position and the wholesale slaughter carried out by our enemies.
What do other Forum members think on this one?
Best wishes for a happy, healthy and peaceful New Year,
Andy C. Neilson
Very interesting “thread” on this one...In my opinion a “massacre” is when unarmed civilians or prisoners-of-war are deliberately shot down (or killed in any other way) and no survivors are left by the perpetrators to “tell the tale”.
Under that definition the Malmedy “incident” was definitely a “massacre” no matter how it originally started whether by accident or deliberate. Fleeing POW’s were “hunted-down” and shot. Wounded...whether lightly or severely were then shot and killed.
Custer’s last battle at the Little Big Horn was definitely not a “massacre”. Custer and the 7th.Cavalry were “armed and dangerous” and attacked the Indian encampment. The fact that they bit off more than they could chew led to their own demise and no survivors does not in itself constitute a “massacre”.
Unfortunately in war real massacres happen all too frequently. During World War Two both sides committed such acts -- Allied and Axis. However there is no doubt that while British and American forces committed occasional war crimes on relatively rare occasions (and small scale) and without official approval. This could not be said of the Germans and Japanese. On the Axis side large scale massacres were both officially and unofficially sanctioned and carried out on civilians and prisoners alike throughout the war.
Our Russian allies, I would say, were somewhere in between the British and American position and the wholesale slaughter carried out by our enemies.
What do other Forum members think on this one?
Best wishes for a happy, healthy and peaceful New Year,
Andy C. Neilson
Combat
Brigadier General
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,781
I tend to think of a "massacre" as the virtual annihilation of one side in a struggle. It is more the result and not the status of the parties involved that is determinative. A massacre can occur between armies (e.g. Cannae) and also in the case of war crimes commited against unarmed civilians or prisoners.
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,786
FWIW, here is the dictionary.com reference to the meaning of massacre:
1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,786
On the killing of prisoners, because of the nature of the conflict, the Russians were probably just as bad as the Germans. This was obviously because of what the Germans had done. In The War of the World, Niall Ferguson writes that "the Soviets treated the Germans precisely as the Germans had treated them. Prisoners were frequently shot immediately after interrogation, a practice immediately justified as retaliation for German treatment of Soviet prisoners."
Although Allied propaganda pretended otherwise, as noted by Max Hastings in Armageddon, some American formations were notorious for dealing summarily with captives. This was intensified after Malmedy.
Although Allied propaganda pretended otherwise, as noted by Max Hastings in Armageddon, some American formations were notorious for dealing summarily with captives. This was intensified after Malmedy.
panda1gen
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,177
Andy
From the accounts I have read you may be acting generously to the Soviet Authorities who seemed to be as hard on their own 'liberated' population in Ukraine and the Baltic States for example - and their own few surviving repatriated POWs who were often sent to certain death in a Siberian camp - as they were on some conquered Germans.
Also the stories of sexual violence against German women upon entering Germany and some 'massacres' that went with it seem to be too numerous to ignore.
I also agree that no side in a war is ever a Saint. I think it is incompatable with war and the ethos of military - as opposed to police - authority and doctrine, which anoys me when currently fighting forces are being put under civil jurisdiction in an innappropriate way in my opinion - NOT that I condone abuse of civil rights but if they wanted a police force they should have sent one.
I am not a military person myself so stand to be corrected - anyway you know I enjoy an argument.....
Dragoon
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,217
The Soviets executed a great number Polish officers in '39 or '40 (can't remember the location name) when they joined the Germans in the invasion and bisecting of Poland to start of the war in Europe.
So the killing prisoners in mass was already a Soviet practice well before the Germans invaded Mother Russia.
So the killing prisoners in mass was already a Soviet practice well before the Germans invaded Mother Russia.