Historical Discussions - All Opinions Welcome (1 Viewer)

[OzDigger]

Yes, let's move this discussion as Shannon et al suggested.

The 'Malmedy Massacre' would make an interesting 'first' topic as Brad suggested, here's my two cents worth.

Now I'll just light the blue touch-paper and stand back

The Malmedy Massacre, is an excellent demonstration of how different media, especially movies, can influence our beliefs. I hate movies that are said to be based on actual events but often leave out relevant facts or change facts for the sake of easier movie making, artistic license, or heaven forbid - propaganda reasons.

I guess we will never know the whole truth about what happened at Malmedy, but here are some details of what may have happened: http://historynet.com/wwii/blmassac...medy/index.htmlbut

Therefore the main theories are:

a) They were murdered without provocation by the German armoured column that came upon the lightly guarded group of American soldiers.

b) The Americans while under light guard were on the point of taking up arms again and or were mistaken for combatants by the German armoured column that arrived on the scene shortly after.

c) The Americans attempted to escape. A German fired warning shot(s) with his hand gun which may have caused the GI's to panic and run, the German soldiers then acted as soldiers do towards escaping prisoners.



We do know the following:

1) The killing of men who had surrendered or laid down their arms was common to all the combatants in the Second World War. How many of you guys got upset when the GI's shot surrendering Germans in Saving Private Ryan.

2) The killings happened in a field adjacent to where the soldiers were captured. They were not transported in trucks to some prearranged 'killing ground' as depicted in the movie 'The Battle of the Bulge' etc.

3) There were about 140 captured Americans in the field at the time of the killings. About 85 bodies were later discovered in the field when the Americans finally gained control of the area. However it should be noted that about half of the dead had been killed in the battle on the road when the American column was initially attacked and the surrender took place. Civilian witnesses say about 40 were actually killed on the field.

4) The surviving American officer (Lt Lary) in the lead jeep of the convoy changed his version of the events several times, some of the versions were very fanciful apparently. Why did he lie? And why did he and Captain Mills lead the column towards the approaching German column in the first place - against suggestions by GI MPs that they take an alternate route?

5) About 55 of the captured American soldiers at Malmedy remained alive after the incident, yet most movies show only a few survivors at best. Why would the Germans leave so many 'witnesses' alive if the killings were planned and unprovoked. The German armoured column included several tanks, half-tracks etc, so they had plenty of fire-power available if they wanted to make a thorough 'German' job of it.

6) Paradoxically the order to kill prisoners, which cannot be found in German files was issued by some American units who fell victim to their own propaganda.

 

[Eazy]

Lots of interesting points to consider.

1. Regarding the media.

Yes we have become accustomed to seeing Nazi's executing prisoners in films and other media. "The Great Escape" springs to mind when all the recaptured prisoners are machine gunned.

The comics i grew up on were full of SS executing prisoners.

Lately that has been balanced by German surrendering prisoners being shot in Saving Private Ryan. And prisoners being shot in Band of Brothers, although that is off camera and the implication is that the prisoners MAY have been escaping.

2. The SS / German reputation for atrocity.

Well that certainly is justified. Oradour Sur Glane, Tulle, Crete, anywhere on the eastern front.
In a documentary i watched on Dunkirk there was a gut wrenching scene where SS troops herded British prisoners into a barn and then hurled grenades into it.
The Germans also didn't just confine their killings to military personnel. They applied execution tactics to local populations where resistance was occuring.


3. Why execute prisoners?

Well it's happened in every war in history. It's foolish to think it was just the SS that did it.
Usually it happens if the captors have no way of keeping the prisoners. What are you supposed to do with them? Set them free so that can fight against you again?

Surrendering prisoners shot like in SPR tends to happen in the heat of the moment.
The implication is, what would you do if you'd just seen a bunch of your guys killed or injured and then those responsible suddenly give up and say "kamerad" when cornered?

4. Malmedy

Going back to the Malmedy Massacre, what about Louis's story about the pregnant woman and extreme brutality applied to the local population? I'm not disputing it but i can't quite imagine how such a thing could have happened. What would have been the provocation or is it something SS just do for kicks?

The massacre of the town of Oradour Sur Glane occured as a reprisal for the death of a senior Das Reich officer at the hands of the resistance.
The massacre was certainly extreme and tales of brutality there are very similar to Louis's story from Belgium.

It's hard to say if anything is true or false but when faced with the fact that the town's population was herded into the church and the building then burned it's hard to put anything past the SS.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi guys,

I do hate to wade in on subjects like this because like you already have said there are a lot of conflicting stories from this very dark momment in time. I have an opinion and I am sure that everyone else does too but the fact of the matter is that surrendering soldiers on the field of battle during the fight may or may not be treated right depending on the state of training of their opposition. A really well trained unit will have the discipline to stop shooting and take the enemy combatants prisoner. I will tell you that it takes a great, actually huge amount of training to achieve this kind of discipline. I cannot defend their actions at Malmadey only say that this could have been the result of one or two nervous soldiers starting to shoot and everyone joined in before order could be restored. As for the other places where these things happened against civilians there can be no defense of those actions and hopefully the people who did them got it in the head too.

Talk to you all later.

Dave

 

[CannonFodder1971]

Even though it was a popularity stunt of sorts, I suppose Peiper faced justice retrospectively, on an extra-judicial basis:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Peiper.html

However, it should be remembed that regardless of whether there is insufficient evidence of premeditation in the Malmédy massacre it cannot be divorced from the general brutality exercised at that time:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html

That's 67 men, 47 women and 23 children at Stavelot two days after Malmédy. I don't think that anyone need shed too much tears over the fate of the members of Kampfgruppe Peiper.

 

[ucla1967]

There is an excellent book on the Battle of the Bulge, called Hitler's Last Gamble by Trevor Dupuy. It has interesting tables on casualties down to the unit level. It clearly answers some of the earlier discussion regarding the role of Allies in this battle. To wit: U.S. casualties were 62,434 of whom 6,328 were KIA. British casualties were 1,464 of whom 223 were KIA. So 97 percent of the KIAs were American.

Regarding Malmedy, there is am discussion in Appendix G which summarizes what is known. For example: (1) Some Americans did try to sneak away, (2)
Some Americans may have been armed, (3) Shots were fired by the Germans which was soon followed by a volume of aimed machine gun fire at the mass of the prisoners, (4) 72 American bodies were recovered out of an estimated 130 prisoners, and (5) From the trial, some of the wounded were given the coup de grace.

 

[OzDigger]

About what happened to Peiper: I have no support for any post war terrorist (that's what they were imo) activities to redress perceived wrongs for what someone did in the past. Col Peiper was a hard line SS Commander but he served his time and should have been allowed to finish his life in peace.

Malmedy: Here is another link to shed some more light on this subject: http://members.cox.net/honorguard2/Battle_of_the_Bulge.html
My opinion is that the Germans acted the same as most guards from any country would have done towards escaping prisoners: if they don't stop they get shot. I would lay the blame firmly on those at the rear of the group of GI's that ran for the forest causing the Germans to open fire therefore killing mainly those GI's in the front ranks that had no idea what was happening behind them.

If German infantry with rifles were guarding the group they would have been in a better postion to only shoot at only those running away. Pistols and tank machine guns lack this accuracy. And as I said earlier, if the Germans had intended to kill those prisoners they would have left none alive. They did this in Russia etc on more than one occassion.

Battle of the Bulge: The Germans deliberately attacked the American line fronting the Ardennes Forest because they knew it was only lightly defended. Remember that they attacked through that area when they invaded France and I am surprised the Allied Command, especially the Americans did not consider them doing the same thing again.

British troops where on the Northern flank of American lines across the other side of the Meuse River. Therefore their participation was minimal, mainly because of the threat from friendly fire which was not uncommon. For example, Malmedy was bombed twice in error by the American Air Force while it was in American hands. Eisenhower returned Command of the relevant American Forces to Montgomery to halt the German advance. However many American Generals, including Bradley, refused to accept Montgomery's authority and consequently his orders were mainly ignored.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Ozdigger,

I hate to seem overly skeptical, but where did you get your information about the refusal to accept Montgomery's commands? First of all, Bradley equalled Montgomery in command authority, and it was a portion of his command that was reassigned to Monty, so the only orders he received on the subject were from Ike, which he was in no position to disobey. Ike at the time was in a complete paranoid panic (he was convinced assasins were after him) and would probably have had Bradley arrested if he refused an order. Second of all, I never heard of such a thing as wartime orders in probably the most critical moment of the war on the western front being disobeyed or refused with impugnity. Any commander who did such a thing would have been court martialled, cashiered, or worse. The history books I've read said that upon being reassigned the American forces on the Northern shoulder of the Bulge, Monty, other than gloating, refused to take any offensive action, despite being begged to do so by his new subordinates. If Patton (whom I do not admire) had not acted with alacrity to come to the relief of the troops pinned in the Bulge, Monty's inaction could have lead to a complete collapse of the western front. I can see trying to defend his actions in some circumstances, but trying to defend his actions during the Bulge seems a bit over the top.

Finally, as far as Pieper being assassinated, who cares? The man butchered civilians as well as allied POW's, none of whom had the benefit of a trial in court, so I don't have any problem with his fate. He who lives by the sword . . .

 

[Chuck Harris]

I agree with Louis "Finally, as far as Pieper being assassinated, who cares?"

The only way Command could get the Marines in the PTO to take live prisoners was to give 2 or 3 days off on the RR ships that were with the supply ships. This is a subject you don't read much about.

There are more things that go on in the strain of combat that are never put to paper and I personally don't think they should.
For those of you who have been there know what I'm talking about.
For the ones have been spared you are lucky.

 

[DMNamiot]

Do we have any WWI enthusiasts out here? I am always looking for some one to discuss the Great War especially some of the side shows like German East Africa or The desert campaign.

What say you?

Dave

 

[OzDigger]

Ozdigger,

He who lives by the sword . . .

....dies in his home by the petrol bomb - thrown by French communists

Call me conservative, but I reckon it's best that justice is actioned by those in authority rather than some fanatical fringe group. Col Peiper didn't have a blameless record for sure, but even murderers should receive a fair trial, and after they serve their time they should be left in peace.

Louis, I obtained this info from The Battle of the Bulge - Then and Now by Jean Paul Pallud, but I only had time to give the short version.

Here's a more detailed account of the 'Commander Confrontation': Following the extensive advance by the Germans into the American front Eisenhower granted Montgomery control (20th December) of the Northern side of The Bulge being the US First Army (Gen Hodges) - btw there was no mention of it being a temporary arrangement. Bradley, who previously had overall control of both armies now only controlled the US Third Army (Patton) South of the Bulge. As you can imagine Bradley was not happy with a British officer in charge of 'his' troops in the North.

The situation worsened following Montgomery's meeting with Bradley on Christmas Day where Montgomery wanted to shorten the line and delay a counter attack by US Forces as they weren't ready. Bradley protested in strong terms to Eisenhower and demanded return of the US First Army to his command. Eisenehower refused as he agreed with Montgomery that the US Forces in the North weren't yet ready for a counter attack.

About the time of the counter attacks Montgomery sent a letter to Eisenhower suggesting or demanding (depending upon the source) that overall command of the Allied ground forces North of The Ardennes (which was a natural barrier) be formally handed over to someone closer to the front line: Montgomery or Bradley (but preferably himself no doubt).

Montgomery believed some earlier problems were caused by delays resulting from the Commander (Eisenhower) being to far behind the lines. I could understand Montgomery's feelings as remote commanders have lost many battles in the past. Of course this did not sit well with Eisenhower who had become somewhat paranoid as he believed the Germans dressed as US troops were after him. There were actually 2,000 German troops in US uniforms and vehicles or similar and were only meant to distrupt things behind the lines - most were shot/executed by the US as spys.

It should be noted around this time that Eisenhower was also becoming less popular in the UK press and Montgomery even less popular in the US press. For example the New York Daily Press ended one article with "Nuts to you, Monty". Eisenhower decided on a showdown and said if anyone was going it wouldn't be the Supreme Commander (Eisenhower). Bradley and Patton supported him and said they would resign if Montgomery expanded or even retained his command over US Forces. And the rest is history as they say, Montgomery backed down and the war went on.

I feel Montgomery is correct in saying it would be better if command was closer to the front. However he was naive to believe he would remain in charge of US Forces after he was no longer needed, and that Eisenhower would take a back seat at this stage.

 

[King & Country]

Re: Massacres in Wartime

Hi Guys,

As we all know the SS was more than capable of carrying out massacres of unarmed civilians and disarmed soldiers. Their appalling record on the Eastern Front easily proves that.

In the West their summary execution and murder of civilians is less well known but still well-documented… The destruction of the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane with over 600 men, women and children butchered. The “Stavelot Massacre” during “The Bulge” which other writers have mentioned and other atrocities in Italy and elsewhere.

During the Normandy Campaign 12th SS murdered, in cold blood, more than a few captured Canadian P.O.W.’s Earlier in the war, during the retreat to Dunkirk, there are at least two well-known massacres of British prisoners.

So, the “Malmedy Massacre” was certainly no random event. However from everything I’ve read (on this thread and in books) my own personal view follows some of yours… i.e. some G.I.s at the back, tried to make a run for the woods… shots were fired.. . a panic broke out … trigger-happy guards joined in and at least 80 odd prisoners were gunned down.

But, back to the point of shooting prisoners… I wrote some time back of a story I was told many years ago of a group of captured Afrika Korps soldiers who were taken behind a sand-dune and “shot while trying to escape”.

Later in Normandy it was the fate of many German Wehrmacht tank crew to be shot out of hand because they were wearing black tank uniforms and their collar patches carried a death’s head skull insignia – many Allied soldiers assumed they were SS. Even the best disciplined units are capable of committing terrible crimes but, generally Allied troops behaved within the moral constraints of their democratically elected governments.

German troops – both Wehrmacht and Waffen SS operated under no such moral restraints mainly because the Nazi Regime itself was a criminally inclined organization led by a disparate (as well as desperate) bunch of misfits, malcontents and psychopaths.

That’s my tuppence worth!



Andy C.

 

[sceic2]

I will use the high ground here for my argument. My own personal beliefs may be different. I bring this up for discussion only.

What is the difference in the Nazi genocide throughout Europe and the carpet-bombing of civilian populations with incendiaries or nuclear weapons by the Allied air forces? In the first incendiary raid on Tokyo, more than 100,00 human beings were, suffocated, cooked, or burned to death.

The only difference, and I am not supporting Nazism - just humanity, between them and us, is that we won and we can call them war criminals. Bomber Harris and General Lamay both said that if not for victory, they would be considered war criminals.

What do ya think? I throw this out with the hope that we can have a conversation with civil discourse.

 

[Joey]

I think you're right. To me, there is absolutely no difference between these bombing runs on Japan and, lets say, the evacuation of the Warsaw Ghetto. Innocent civilians who had no business with this war, were brutally murdered, in the name of total victory.

If Japan would have won, the American generals would have been put to trial too. And if something like this would happen today, these people would be put to justice in Den Hague.

Victory or defeat, war is no excuse for murder of innocent people.

 

[jazzeum]

In Armageddon, there's an excellent discussion about the the bombing of Dresden from an author who should know, Max Hastings, since he also wrote Bomber Command (which I have not read). He's rather critical of Bomber Harris.

I generally agree with the premise but what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those bombs ended the war. I know this will cause controversy but not everybody believed they were necessary or justified. I don't agree with that. In my view, they did end the war. There is also the theory that it was a demonstration by the Americans to the Russians of what power they had so that it heralded the end of one and the beginning of another. I won't discount that.

 

[Eazy]

The fierce resistance to the death showed by the Japanese on Iwo Jima and Okinawa gave a glimpse of what could be expected if the US attempted an invasion of the Japanese mainland.
Right or wrong the atom bombs did bring the war to an end. Yes, many many people died but how many more would have died on both sides if the invasion had gone ahead?

The death toll is too much really for the human mind to comprehend. Looking at it coldly the Japanese were no innocents. Their record of atrocity in China and their terrible mistreatment of allied prisoners,for which even today they refuse to face up to, kind of diminishes my sympathy.

As for bombing raids on Germany. Again these were terrible events but i don't recall that the German people were pleading with Hitler to stop his bombing of London in 1940.

 

[jazzeum]

From my perspective they refuse to face up to anything that happened at all. Their history books don't even mention it. On the other hand, the Germans are completely the opposite. Last year, I was in Nuremberg and I went to this museum about Naziism, not far from the old parade grounds, that was just incredible for what they showed and the evils and so forth. I spent the better part of a day there and was mesmerized. There were many groups of highschoolers and such that day and I was very impressed that Germany would have built a museum of that quality and these highschoolers took it very seriously.

 

[vandilay]

I will use the high ground here for my argument. My own personal beliefs may be different. I bring this up for discussion only.

What is the difference in the Nazi genocide throughout Europe and the carpet-bombing of civilian populations with incendiaries or nuclear weapons by the Allied air forces? In the first incendiary raid on Tokyo, more than 100,00 human beings were, suffocated, cooked, or burned to death.

The only difference, and I am not supporting Nazism - just humanity, between them and us, is that we won and we can call them war criminals. Bomber Harris and General Lamay both said that if not for victory, they would be considered war criminals.

What do ya think? I throw this out with the hope that we can have a conversation with civil discourse.

Hi ,you raise some good points their ,but i suppose the biggest difference between them [germans ,japanese and russia for that matter] is they where the agressors,the allies did not launch unprovoked attacks on germany and japan
I would not class the russians as being allies because lets face it if Hitler hadent been foolish enough to attack russia,Stalin and hitler would have continued to divide europe as they saw fit [i.e poland]

 

[Louis Badolato]

Ozdigger,

This is exactly my point about Monty and Ike. While the Germans are inflicting more than 60,000 casualties and opening a tremendous gap in Allied lines that threatens to cause a route, Monty and Ike are (1) preventing a counter attack which would at least alleviate if not relieve the Soldiers trapped in the gap under tremendous punishment and (2) engaging in a pissing match over which one should be in overall command (obviously so he can take credit for any eventual victory). Like I said, I am no big fan of Patton in general, but at least he realized how critical the situation was and managed to mount a timely counterattack. That being said, I see neither (1) a specific example in your post of any American underling reassigned to Monty disobeying either his or Ike's orders nor (2) any statement of any positive step taken by Monty to do anything to counter the German attack.

On to Pieper and the "justice" system, as an Appellate attorney of 15 years experience, all I can tell you is that in the United States "law" and "justice" seldom meet. The reason Justice wears a blindfolded is so that she won't see how poorly the legal system works. The fact that Pieper wasn't executed for the atrocities perpetrated on civilians by those under his command is merely one more example of a miscarriage of justice. The fact that some Frenchmen, whose families and countrymen had been murdered, corrected this error is fine by me. Quite frankly, I have never had a problem with doing onto someone as he has done onto others. I guess the American vigilante spirit lives on, at least in me. But then again, I am not a big believer in our criminal justice system, as I see its failures on a day to day basis. The truth of the matter is that here, at least, Justice is bought and paid for. If you are rich enough to afford a highly skilled defense attorney like my late father in law (who was a extremely successful mob lawyer) you get off, because the poorly paid assistant district attorneys are never a match for these hired guns. On the other hand, if you are poor and get stuck with a legal aid attorney (the only criminal lawyers lower on the food chain then A.D.A.'s) chances are you are going to either cop a plea or get convicted. Its not like on T.V. So, no, I have no problem with Pieper getting his. If it had been my family his men had raped and killed, I'd have happily lit the match myself.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi guys,

I will put this little tid bit forth and say that there are no non-combatants in Total War which is what we had during the 2d World War. Everyone that was working in a mill or for that fact any kind of industry is a target if you go by the Total War idea. What it means to be in a total war is that the kid that picks cotton that is made in to uniforms is a combatant heck even the folks that make meals or serve coffee to the mill workers are supporting the war effort so they are combatants. Seems like an extreme point of view maybe by todays kinder gentler standards but thats the way it was and I will say the number of lives saved by some of these bombing missions bears this point of view out. To make Lemay and Harris War Criminals or even insinuate this is ridiculous and doesnt pass the common sense test, not by a long shot!

Dave

 

[jazzeum]

Would you mind telling me then of what use was bombing Dresden? I would like to know the answer to that one?