There have been some documentaries done on the History Channel which present the well known "Malmedy Massacre" as not an intentional organized massacre usually associated with the SS. Facts and witnesses (American and German) point to the attempted escape of American prisoners which prompted a guard to fire a warning shot which then started the other prisoners to run and the rest is history. What are your thoughts on this?

------------------
Tschuss

I have read that the massacre was due to some over zealous Waffen SS guards. These were most likely soldiers from the 12 th Waffen SS "Hitler Jugend" Division. Personally, I have never felt that Col. (I cannot think of his proper Waffen SS rank) Joachim Pieper, ever gave any such order, nor knew of the shootings-until much later.

There were too many mistakes and many wrong people got blamed. Pieper, and 40 something Waffen SS men, were sentenced to death, but eventually, all were set free. I wonder if who was responsible for Peipers murder in the 1970s? Simon Weisenthal?, or Mossad?

That is the question of the Century. What amazes me is how Joachim Peiper was able to live in relative solitude in France considering his alleged infamous past.

------------------
Tschuss

of course it was a massacre. no matter the reason, many pow's were executed, which makes it not only a massacre, but also a warcrime. unfortunate however is that these things happened everywhere and not always were the germans the ones who did so. Many germans soldiers were killed likewise throughout the war, but you never read much about it. Just think of all the german POW's that never returned from russia... only 6000 or so out of 150000 or more made it back... American and British soldiers also had their frustrations and scenes like in saving private ryan were all too common (just after the landing where they kill surrendering german soldiers)This is war, and shit happens.....

------------------
*** We shall not retreat, nor shall we surrender. If we cannot stay here alive, we shall stay here dead***

i was a massacre because when a few POW's try to escape you don't shoot the whole lot!
Also my own opinion is that this SS division captured this group and couldn't be weighed down by taking care of them...so thus..."got rid of them"
The commander was known for his brutality...and even other german commanders looked down upon the event> it was a massacre

In definate agreement. It was a massacre. A company of lightly armed signallers. How dangerous could they be? Again though, I still see it as being over zealous. Waffen SS indoctrination and propaganda, thats instilled into young minds eventally they would began to believe it.

Maybe the men were killed/massacred because the SS men thought they were calling for help. Even if that was happening, I still seen no reason why they were killed.

Another 'old' topic
But one which interests me as I have benn reading a lot recently about the Malmedy Massacre. Whatever the initial circumstances, post-mortem results showed that around thirty of the US dead had been shot through the head ( 'finished off' ) at point-blank range. Yes, it was a massacre.
But I thought that that scene in SPR was valuable for modern audiences - I felt like cheering, too, and then felt ashamed. By 1944, the war was very brutal indeed, and the thought of teenagers with MG42s . . . Impossible to judge the actions of individuals in war by peacetime standards.
What really decided me about Malmedy was David Irving's 'apology' in his book 'The War Between The Generals'. In his version , there was a 'firefight' at Baugnez, after which the American dead were laid out in rows.
Some firefight ! 84 US killed, and not one of Peiper's men even wounded there. Oh, come ON . . . !

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Yeds it was a massacre, but not an intentonal one. No one said 'i think we should just shot these damn yanks'. I think the Germans on the spot, after realiseing what happened, just decided that there should be no wittnesses. After all, who would have believed a bunch of SS men who said it was a mistake.How many SS men were shot out of hand by the Allies, before and after. Its a crime that so manyAllied soldiers got away with such things, and we still hear excses for it today.

__________________
'England confides that every man will do his duty' Nelson
'I'm a Norfolk man, and glory in being so' Nelson

Proud to be a GRUNT

Massacre at Malmédy... It is just that SS men took Eastern's front warfare standards to the Western front. Well, it is not well to say thet they were men; those were just teenagers who dreamed about their Führer every night, because all had been raised that way, all the men in 12. SS Panzerdivision. But I think that Standartenführer Joachim Peiper was only trying to advance and go through enemy lines. He had better things to worry about than simple prissoners. Beside we have got to consider that German's situation was very bad, without enough ammo, food or clothes. There were not enough men nor resources enough to take care of the prissoners (and if we add that they tried to scape...)Then SS men were just practical. When you don't need something and if it also bothers to you, what do you do? You throw it away. I know this comparisson is too cruel and cold but it is kind of true. I condemn this massacre anyway, because things were different in the Western front. Because German prissoners were oftenly treated finely in the West. We should have done the same.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Despite all the books and controversy over Malmedy I'v always felt that it's in a totally different league to Oradour-sur-Glane. . .

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

I totally agree Otto. Oradour was an intentional massacre. Malmedy was an unfortunate untentional massacre. This is from what I have gathered.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Malmedy again.

Prompted by our discussion, I have just finished reading James J. Weingartner's 'Crossroads of Death' published by University of California Press, 1979. This is essential reading for anyone who wishes to study this incident in detail. ( A problem for researchers is that many German names have been 'changed to protect the innocent' as Peiper's murder had occurred whilst it was being written ).

The original point raised by PzJgr is comprehensively demolished : -

'The most telling circumstance militating against the escape hypothesis is that none of the defendants or the defence witnesses attempted to argue that the prisoners had been shot while trying to escape. That it occurred to no-one indicates its remoteness from the actual events'.

Weingartner concludes that Malmedy was definitely a massacre, vicious and brutal but : -

'The crossroads killings were the product of a set of military circumstances which would have created strong pressures for the shooting of prisoners in any army'.

The Waffen-SS were more prone than perhaps any other to this kind of 'excess' and the book contains interesting discussion of the unique ideology,training and doctrine of the Waffen-SS.
Interesting to note that even the scholarly and objective Weingartner seems to fall under the 'spell' of Peiper, expressing grudging admiration for Peiper's skill as a soldier and unrepentant honesty.

Why did Malmedy emerge as such a cause celebre ? At the time, the US 'needed' the story to stiffen the resolve of their frontline troops. And immediately post-war, in an emotional climate of vengeance and retribution against Nazi Germany 'personified' by the SS, Malmedy 'fitted the bill' perfectly.

And now it's being 'used' by others for a stick to beat the US - obviously, see David Irving and the History Channel.

If you're going to read one book about Malmedy - make it this one.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Absolutely-of course it was a massacre. Just ask survivor Lt Virgil Lary. Some of the Waffen SS smoked and laughed as they brutally executed those US soldiers...

__________________
"GARRY OWEN"-Traditional war-cry of the US 7th Cavalry.
"CURRAHEE"-War-cry of the US 506th PIR.
"Everybody thinks that they are going to get the chance to punch some Nazi in the face at Normandy-and those days are over, they are long gone"-Lt Chris Burnett

It was indeed a massacre. But a small one compared to all of the slaughter made to Soviet prissoners. Also, German soldiers were shot by British and Americans some times. ALL did it at least once, of course, in different scales.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

This point is discussed in Weingartner's book.
Prisoners have always been killed in war and it becomes morally very difficult to judge or condemn by peacetime standards. This is not to say whether such murders are 'wrong' or 'right', just inevitable under certain war conditions.

But 'Malmedy' has become synonymous with 'Nazi SS Massacre' because it has become a 'vehicle' for various political and revisionist arguments.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

I'm not exactly sure which massacre this one is, but I heard about an alledged massacre of GIs which was (according to the report) merely a spot where combat casulaties had been moved to. Apparently the casualties even inlcuded a good batch of Germans, but it was called a massacre of GIs. I have no idea how true the report was, nor exactly which massacre it means.

__________________
„Solange man nicht mit dem Kopf unterm Arm rumläuft geht es doch noch!" Erwin Rommel

Not sure which one you mean, Andreas. As I mentioned before, David Irving suggested that the Malmedy corpses were 'placed' there but this seems highly unlikely. KG Peiper were accused of many 'atrocities' which simply never happened.

For sure, in the confused conditions of the end of the war in Europe, many regrettable things occurred about which we will never now know the truth.

For instance, the very famous US National Archive photo of German guards at Dachau on April 29, 1945 'lying down' while a US machine gunner 'fires over their heads'. Are they alive? Dead? Even with an on-the-spot photo it is very difficult to tell exactly what is going on. Again, Irving has used this picture to support his own agenda.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

If David Irving suggested that two and two gave four, I'd be highly inclined to believe the opposite.

But then, you can seldomly trust contemporary official news reports either. On all sides they were coloured with propaganda. In some photos taken before the war (in 1938 or 1939) a picture was used by both sides with exactly opposite purpose. It's quite ridiculous sometimes.

__________________
„Solange man nicht mit dem Kopf unterm Arm rumläuft geht es doch noch!" Erwin Rommel

Last year I spoke with a German LAH veteran (Nachrichtenkompanie) who was attached to KG Peiper in the Ardennes. He has his own theory about what happened and I tend to believe he's right. First of all he stated that he can't deny what happened (as many other veterans do). He believes the men in the field were killed by the crew of the present 251's, not by the Panzers. Must say this makes sense to me since he showed me on location why the tanks are out of the question. He also gave me a psychological profile on the men who did it. He said: "imagine these 17-year old grenadiers, green as grass the only thing that makes them feel strong is their gun. A small group of these teenagers is ordered to guard this large group of Americans". He said that he's convinced that the SS-men were probabely more scared of the American prisoners then vise versa. And then all over sudden the Americans start moving. As a reflex the grenadiers opened fire. Like all men without sufficient training would do (whoever trained young recrutes knows this is a fact).

I don't say its right to open fire, no way, but I guess I understand the reflex that made them do it.

After they stopped firing the soldiers realized the consequenses of what they did (they knew the war would be over soon) and they decided to kill all survivors. Had they been battle harden veterans nobody whould have lived to tell, but even this (fortunately) these rookies couldn't do "right".

That, executing survivors, was their real crime. And a crime that was. No doubt about it.

[ 05 July 2002, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Timo ]

__________________
Also spricht der Narr: 'der Umgang mit Menschen verdirbt den Charakter, sonderlich wenn man keinen hat.'

That makes since Timo, and I can relate to what you told of here--even if it was a wrong thing.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Thats basically whatCharles Whiting says in 'The Last Assault'. And given the state of the SS at the tim where numbers weremade up with youngsters and guys from the Navy and Airforce who were unused to ground cobmat, it is believable.

Unfortunatly, most people think it happened as it did in the movie which could not be further from the truth.

__________________
'England confides that every man will do his duty' Nelson
'I'm a Norfolk man, and glory in being so' Nelson

Proud to be a GRUNT

I agree with you mate--the movie was totally out of line from reality. Even for a movie to be condensed as it was--some truth COULD and SHOULD have been shown. The only value this movie has--is that it is intertaining to watch--but very laughable.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.