Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich

[EricGuitarJames]

Oh I see, we're working on heresay and the testimony of a convicted murderer. Up to your usual standards then
[8|]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Oh I see, we're working on heresay and the testimony of a convicted murderer. Up to your usual standards then
[8|]

LOL

Oh, man. . .

The sworn testimony of the German General (Dietrich) who was actually AT THE Dec 12, 1944 CONFERENCE is NOT hearsay. He swore he actually heard Hitler say it. And Hitler ordered all German generals present to SECRECY.

The US Army Official History has NEVER been refuted as to the facts surounding this issue.

LOL

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Oh I see, we're working on heresay and the testimony of a convicted murderer. Up to your usual standards then
[8|]

LOL

Oh, man. . .

The sworn testimony of the German General (Dietrich) who was actually AT THE Dec 12, 1944 CONFERENCE is NOT hearsay. He swore he actually heard Hitler say it. And Hitler ordered all German generals present to SECRECY.

The US Army Official History has NEVER been refuted as to the facts surounding this issue.

LOL

The only fact here is that Dietrich said it. There is no corroborating evidence. Therefore it's the word of a convicted criminal however it is spun. It's still hearsay[:-]

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Oh I see, we're working on heresay and the testimony of a convicted murderer. Up to your usual standards then
[8|]

LOL

Oh, man. . .

The sworn testimony of the German General (Dietrich) who was actually AT THE Dec 12, 1944 CONFERENCE is NOT hearsay. He swore he actually heard Hitler say it. And Hitler ordered all German generals present to SECRECY.

The US Army Official History has NEVER been refuted as to the facts surounding this issue.

LOL

The only fact here is that Dietrich said it. There is no corroborating evidence. Therefore it's the word of a convicted criminal however it is spun. It's still hearsay[:-]

The only thing US Army Official History claims to be fact is that Dietrich said it was Hitlers intentions. If it really was so, we cannot know for a fact. However, it would not be shocking if it was true [;)].



JT

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Oh I see, we're working on heresay and the testimony of a convicted murderer. Up to your usual standards then
[8|]

LOL

Oh, man. . .

The sworn testimony of the German General (Dietrich) who was actually AT THE Dec 12, 1944 CONFERENCE is NOT hearsay. He swore he actually heard Hitler say it. And Hitler ordered all German generals present to SECRECY.

The US Army Official History has NEVER been refuted as to the facts surounding this issue.

LOL

The only fact here is that Dietrich said it. There is no corroborating evidence. Therefore it's the word of a convicted criminal however it is spun. It's still hearsay[:-]

You have NO IDEA what hearsay even means. [8|]

Dietrich's sworn statements ARE DIRECT TESTIMONY. He was ACTUALLY at the conference.

While Dietrich may be a convicted criminal, he was also a General, and was in command of the 6th SS Panzer Army. So his testimony carries weight.


Definitions of hearsay on the Web:

gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


Statements by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else. Hearsay is usually not admissible as evidence in court.
www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/glossary.html


Any evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them. For example, if Bob heard from Susan about an accident that Susan witnessed but that Bob had not, and Bob attempted to repeat Susan's story in court, it could be objected to as "hearsay." The basic rule, when testifying in court, is that you can only provide information of which you have direct knowledge. In other words, hearsay evidence is not allowed. Hearsay evidence is also referred to as "second-hand evidence" or as "rumor." You are able to tell a court what you heard, to repeat the rumor, and testify that, in fact, the story you heard was told to you, but under the hearsay rule, your testimony would not be evidence of the actual facts of the story but only that you heard those words spoken.
www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-gh.htm


Information given to a witness by another person. The witness did not see the information first hand. The witness does not have personal knowledge of the original event. Hearsay is not admissible in court.
www.saskjustice.gov.sk.ca/courts/court_ ... erms.shtml


What someone else has been heard to say as contrasted with direct hearing.
www.fire.org.uk/legterms.htm


– Evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say rather than what the witness has personally experienced or observed.
port.inst.cl.uh.edu/portfolio/FassburgT/glossary.htm


evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than what he has personally experienced.
www.alacourt.org/Publications/Glossary/h.htm

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: Von Rom



LOL

Oh, man. . .

The sworn testimony of the German General (Dietrich) who was actually AT THE Dec 12, 1944 CONFERENCE is NOT hearsay. He swore he actually heard Hitler say it. And Hitler ordered all German generals present to SECRECY.

The US Army Official History has NEVER been refuted as to the facts surounding this issue.

LOL

The only fact here is that Dietrich said it. There is no corroborating evidence. Therefore it's the word of a convicted criminal however it is spun. It's still hearsay[:-]

The only thing US Army Official History claims to be fact is that Dietrich said it was Hitlers intentions. If it really was so, we cannot know for a fact. However, it would not be shocking if it was true [;)].



JT

Also from the Official History:

"Hitler's order to take no prisoners probably had wide circulation. Lt. Col. George Mabry, commander of the 2d Battalion, 8th Infantry, has stated that his unit captured a German colonel from the Seventh Army who had such an order. Ltr, Gen Barton to author, 17 Nov 59."

[Error in 0]

From what I read here I agree that alot point towards Hitler giving such an order. But to be pedantic, I would rather use statements like 'overwhelming indications of', 'strongly points towards' etc instead of 'fact'. It becomes a fact if one actually had such an signed order on paper or equivalent.

I think there is a leap from the quote (from US Military History)

The commander of the Sixth SS Panzer Army [Sepp Dietrich] took oath in the trials of 1946 that, acting on Hitler's orders, he issued a directive stating that the German troops should be preceded 'by a wave of terror and fright and that no human inhibitions should be shown.'"

to

Hitler's order to take no prisoners probably had wide circulation.

The first pointing out what Dietrich said, the other claiming it to be fact. I guess there must be a chain of arguments betwen these, but you do not have to print these von Rom. I agree it is likely Hitler ordered this atrocities. After all, apparantly the US 328 was also given similar orders! Again, did anyone investigate if they committed war crimes?



JT

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

From what I read here I agree that alot point towards Hitler giving such an order. But to be pedantic, I would rather use statements like 'overwhelming indications of', 'strongly points towards' etc instead of 'fact'. It becomes a fact if one actually had such an signed order on paper or equivalent.

I think there is a leap from the quote (from US Military History)

The commander of the Sixth SS Panzer Army [Sepp Dietrich] took oath in the trials of 1946 that, acting on Hitler's orders, he issued a directive stating that the German troops should be preceded 'by a wave of terror and fright and that no human inhibitions should be shown.'"

to

Hitler's order to take no prisoners probably had wide circulation.

The first pointing out what Dietrich said, the other claiming it to be fact. I guess there must be a chain of arguments betwen these, but you do not have to print these von Rom. I agree it is likely Hitler ordered this atrocities. After all, apparantly the US 328 was also given similar orders! Again, did anyone investigate if they committed war crimes?



JT

Well, General Dietrich testified as to Hitler's "wave of terror" order which he then promulgated to the troops of 6th army.

Other German officers (the German Colonel from 7th Army) also testified as to the "take no prisoners" order, and this adds more credibility to Dietrich's testimony.

Further, if the massacre was confined to just Malmedy, then there could be room for doubt.

However, in addition to the 81 GIs murdered at Malmedy, an additional 300 or so US soldiers and 80+ Belgium civilians were also murdered in 12 different locations, and all along Peiper's route of advance.

Is this all just coincidence?

As to the US shooting of German prisoners:

In addition to the massacre at Malmedy being well known a few hours after it happened, it was also known that German paratroopers, led by SS-Sturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny, and DRESSED AS AMERICAN MPs, were operating behind the American lines.

Since these German soldiers were dressed as Americans, they were treated as spies and some were shot. Skorzney, however, survived the war.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

As to the US shooting of German prisoners:

In addition to the massacre at Malmedy being well known a few hours after it happened, it was also known that German paratroopers, led by SS-Sturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny, and DRESSED AS AMERICAN MPs, were operating behind the American lines.

Since these German soldiers were dressed as Americans, they were treated as spies and some were shot. Skorzney, however, survived the war.

It was stated in this thread that the orders issued by the US commanders were to take no SS or paratroopers prisoner. Not that they had to be dressed up like US men.

Do you know of any allied soldier sentenced for war crimes?


JT

[IronDuke_slith]

Von Rom
He surrendered his army to U.S. General George C. Patton on May 8, 1945.

IronDuke
Not exactly, he surrendered to a US Master Sergeant of the 36th Infantry Division.

Von Rom

I know [8|]

But I said in one sentence what it took you to say in eight sentences.

The above individuals were representing their respective armies. Just as a spokesperson speaks for the president.

Oh dear. I'm sorry, you just gave me the impression that you were trying to praise Patton again, giving him credit for something he had less to do with than usual. I'm assuming that you're saying the Master Sergeant represented Patton, Dietrich his Panzer Armee.

I've done a little research. I'd like your opinion (indeed any thread readers opinion and help)because late war American OOBs are not a strongppoint for me.

Michael Reynolds Men of Steel tells me (and you claim you know and agree with this) that Dietrich surrendered to a Master Sergeant of the 36th on or shortly after 8 May.

Shelby Stanton's Order of Battle: US Army in WWII tells me the 36th joined XXI Corp on 27th April 1945. He also tells me it finished the war in Kustrin, Austria which supports the claim it was this unit Dietrich surrendered to as he was caught in Kustrin.

John Ellis's The World War II databook says 36 Division did indeed belong to XXI Corp and that XXI Corp belonged to the Seventh US Army on 30th April.

I'm not sure who commanded Seventh Army at this time except it was either General Patch or General Keyes, a fact I picked up from Carlo D'Este's book on Patton.

I'd appreciate any help corrodorating these facts, but if I'm correct, and 36th Division belonged to 7th Army, and Patton (as I understand it although you are the Forum "expert") commanded 3rd Army, how was the Master Sergeant of the 36th accepting the surrender of General Dietrich on behalf of General Patton [8|][&:].

Please correct me if I am wrong (a request I make to all thread readers. I'm interested in the truth. Whether I provide it or someone else corrects me is immaterial) , but if I am right Patton had absolutely nothing to do with this. Thus, on what do you base your assertion he surrendered to Patton?

Secondly, you seem to be suggesting Dietrich represented his Panzer Armee when he surrendered. However, since they surrendered separately, in another area, of their own volition, not because Dietrich was directing them to, how do you support this statement?

Regards,
IronDuke
(Other thread users, I'd appreciate any help nailing down the OOB for 36th at this point in the war, in case I'm wrong).

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Von Rom
He surrendered his army to U.S. General George C. Patton on May 8, 1945.

IronDuke
Not exactly, he surrendered to a US Master Sergeant of the 36th Infantry Division.

Von Rom

I know [8|]

But I said in one sentence what it took you to say in eight sentences.

The above individuals were representing their respective armies. Just as a spokesperson speaks for the president.

Oh dear. I'm sorry, you just gave me the impression that you were trying to praise Patton again, giving him credit for something he had less to do with than usual. I'm assuming that you're saying the Master Sergeant represented Patton, Dietrich his Panzer Armee.

I've done a little research. I'd like your opinion (indeed any thread readers opinion and help)because late war American OOBs are not a strongppoint for me.

Michael Reynolds Men of Steel tells me (and you claim you know and agree with this) that Dietrich surrendered to a Master Sergeant of the 36th on or shortly after 8 May.

Shelby Stanton's Order of Battle: US Army in WWII tells me the 36th joined XXI Corp on 27th April 1945. He also tells me it finished the war in Kustrin, Austria which supports the claim it was this unit Dietrich surrendered to as he was caught in Kustrin.

John Ellis's The World War II databook says 36 Division did indeed belong to XXI Corp and that XXI Corp belonged to the Seventh US Army on 30th April.

I'm not sure who commanded Seventh Army at this time except it was either General Patch or General Keyes, a fact I picked up from Carlo D'Este's book on Patton.

I'd appreciate any help corrodorating these facts, but if I'm correct, and 36th Division belonged to 7th Army, and Patton (as I understand it although you are the Forum "expert") commanded 3rd Army, how was the Master Sergeant of the 36th accepting the surrender of General Dietrich on behalf of General Patton [8|][&:].

Please correct me if I am wrong (a request I make to all thread readers. I'm interested in the truth. Whether I provide it or someone else corrects me is immaterial) , but if I am right Patton had absolutely nothing to do with this. Thus, on what do you base your assertion he surrendered to Patton?

Secondly, you seem to be suggesting Dietrich represented his Panzer Armee when he surrendered. However, since they surrendered separately, in another area, of their own volition, not because Dietrich was directing them to, how do you support this statement?

Regards,
IronDuke
(Other thread users, I'd appreciate any help nailing down the OOB for 36th at this point in the war, in case I'm wrong).

Oh, brother [8|]

Of all the things to argue in this thread and you choose this?

When I said "I know", I meant that Dietrich did not walk up to Patton and say "I surrender". [8|]

Frankly, I could care less to whom he or 6th army surrendered.

This is all incidental to what is under discussion.

As I have mentioned on numerous occasions:

You debate the obscure; and argue the inconsequential.

Have fun sorting all this out [>:]

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Von Rom
He surrendered his army to U.S. General George C. Patton on May 8, 1945.

IronDuke
Not exactly, he surrendered to a US Master Sergeant of the 36th Infantry Division.

Von Rom

I know [8|]

But I said in one sentence what it took you to say in eight sentences.

The above individuals were representing their respective armies. Just as a spokesperson speaks for the president.

Oh dear. I'm sorry, you just gave me the impression that you were trying to praise Patton again, giving him credit for something he had less to do with than usual. I'm assuming that you're saying the Master Sergeant represented Patton, Dietrich his Panzer Armee.

I've done a little research. I'd like your opinion (indeed any thread readers opinion and help)because late war American OOBs are not a strongppoint for me.

Michael Reynolds Men of Steel tells me (and you claim you know and agree with this) that Dietrich surrendered to a Master Sergeant of the 36th on or shortly after 8 May.

Shelby Stanton's Order of Battle: US Army in WWII tells me the 36th joined XXI Corp on 27th April 1945. He also tells me it finished the war in Kustrin, Austria which supports the claim it was this unit Dietrich surrendered to as he was caught in Kustrin.

John Ellis's The World War II databook says 36 Division did indeed belong to XXI Corp and that XXI Corp belonged to the Seventh US Army on 30th April.

I'm not sure who commanded Seventh Army at this time except it was either General Patch or General Keyes, a fact I picked up from Carlo D'Este's book on Patton.

I'd appreciate any help corrodorating these facts, but if I'm correct, and 36th Division belonged to 7th Army, and Patton (as I understand it although you are the Forum "expert") commanded 3rd Army, how was the Master Sergeant of the 36th accepting the surrender of General Dietrich on behalf of General Patton [8|][&:].

Please correct me if I am wrong (a request I make to all thread readers. I'm interested in the truth. Whether I provide it or someone else corrects me is immaterial) , but if I am right Patton had absolutely nothing to do with this. Thus, on what do you base your assertion he surrendered to Patton?

Secondly, you seem to be suggesting Dietrich represented his Panzer Armee when he surrendered. However, since they surrendered separately, in another area, of their own volition, not because Dietrich was directing them to, how do you support this statement?

Regards,
IronDuke
(Other thread users, I'd appreciate any help nailing down the OOB for 36th at this point in the war, in case I'm wrong).

Oh, brother [8|]

Of all the things to argue in this thread and you choose this?

When I said "I know", I meant that Dietrich did not walk up to Patton and say "I surrender". [8|]

Frankly, I could care less to whom he or 6th army surrendered.

This is all incidental to what is under discussion.

As I have mentioned on numerous occasions:

You debate the obscure; and argue the inconsequential.

Have fun sorting all this out [>:]

[&:]

Why do you object so to being corrected? You introduced Patton, I merely pointed out he had nothing whatsoever to do with this (I presume this is a disappointingly ungracious way of saying you agree with me and you now retract the statement "He surrendered to General George S Patton"?) My problem is that basic innaccuracies like this make me question and double-check the facts you present before arguing with you. My disappointment is that when I find your facts are wrong, you suddenly decide I'm debating the obscure. If the circumstances of his surrender were so obscure and inconsequential, why did you make a statement about it? If you find it worthwhile making a statement in a forum about something, why am I the one debating the obscure when I correct it?

As for

When I said "I know", I meant that Dietrich did not walk up to Patton and say "I surrender".

Fair enough, then please explain (to wrap this aspect of it all up) why you mentioned Patton in this context at all? He didn't (as you've said) personally accept Dietrich's surrender and he didn't command 36th Division, so why did you mention him if you knew this? It is misleading.

You seemed to move the debate on to Malmedy, but, in light of the above, I must now double check this episode out, before presenting an opinion. I know Reynolds in his biography of Peiper had a few things to say about this episode, including a theory of his own to consider.

However, I'll be careful not to disagree with any "facts" you've presented, as I don't want to be guilty of debating obscurities again. [8|]

IronDuke

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Further, if the massacre was confined to just Malmedy, then there could be room for doubt.

However, in addition to the 81 GIs murdered at Malmedy, an additional 300 or so US soldiers and 80+ Belgium civilians were also murdered in 12 different locations, and all along Peiper's route of advance.

Is this all just coincidence?

It does seem interesting that although an Army Commander is apparently issuing orders for a 'wave of terror', only one battlegroup from one division under his command has ever been accused of carrying out those orders. Since Peiper's men were by no means the only members of that division, or that corps, or that army, to fight in the front line during the campaign, what was it that stopped the others behaving in the same despicable manner?

This is not to suggest that Dietrich didn't issue such an order, rather it lends credibility to his admission that he did, since doing so was counter to his interests if it was possible to blame the whole thing on Peiper instead.

Regards
33

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Golf33

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Further, if the massacre was confined to just Malmedy, then there could be room for doubt.

However, in addition to the 81 GIs murdered at Malmedy, an additional 300 or so US soldiers and 80+ Belgium civilians were also murdered in 12 different locations, and all along Peiper's route of advance.

Is this all just coincidence?

It does seem interesting that although an Army Commander is apparently issuing orders for a 'wave of terror', only one battlegroup from one division under his command has ever been accused of carrying out those orders. Since Peiper's men were by no means the only members of that division, or that corps, or that army, to fight in the front line during the campaign, what was it that stopped the others behaving in the same despicable manner?

This is not to suggest that Dietrich didn't issue such an order, rather it lends credibility to his admission that he did, since doing so was counter to his interests if it was possible to blame the whole thing on Peiper instead.

Regards
33

A fair point, not least because Peiper's unit seem to have sent prisoners to the rear on a number of occasions during this battle, so it is hard to believe they decided to adhere to some Fuhrer order at this one point (and just this one point) during the fighting.

From what I've read, it seems there were two possible solutions.

Firstly, the fact the KG was well out in front, in the midst of a narrow corridor they had punched into American lines meant they had few supporting troops to transport prisoners to the rear with. They were also pressing on as fast as they could, and with US troops on three sides, they were conscious they couldn't just leave a company sized American force behind astride their line of communication. This doesn't excuse what happened, but it could be some Officer (maybe not even Peiper) decided there was nothing else to do. It's a warcrime and the sort of solution that would not have troubled much of the SS, but not premeditated.

Also, why take them prisoner at all? If obeying some sort of "no prisoners" order, you are disobeying it by accepting the surrender in the first place. It's far easier to simply accept no surrender. This sort of battlefield execution is a common feature of warfare and all sides practised it (both with and without higher sanction) at some point in the war. So, again, I don't think premeditation comes into it.

Secondly, many of the accounts from survivors agree there were two to three single shots first, and there was some commotion within the body of American troops before the firing started. There is a suggestion that this German Tank crewman who admitted firing first, was firing at some Americans who were attempting to escape. The main body stood fast, but the shooting caused other Germans round about to open fire, and it became a massacre. The single shots may well have caused the rest of the prisoners to panic and start to run, giving the Germans the impression there was a general escape attempt on and causing them to open fire (shooting and killing escaping prisoners is not a warcrime, I believe).

What I've seen suggests about half the Americans got away from the massacre, which again doesn't suggest it was premeditated. You don't set up massacres like this in such a way as to give the men a good chance to escape. We'll probably never know the exact reasons. I don't buy the Fuhrer order, though, simply because it doesn't look premeditated and Peiper's unit had taken prisoners up to that point without incident. I can't see why he would suddenly obey a Fuhrer order after ignoring it for days.

This isn't to excuse the SS. Mohnke had form, IIRC, being part of a unit that murdered some British infantry in France in 1940 (anyone confirm this for me?) I remember some incident with Canadians with Meyer in Normandy as well, and the atrocity at Oradour was committed by members of Das Reich. However, I think these and Malmedy display not a matter of policy (I'm not talking about the east here which remains a different matter altogether) but rather the actions of men who had a lower conscience threshold than the regular Army. This sort of behaviour was a more acceptable option for them than it was for others.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke








Oh dear. I'm sorry, you just gave me the impression that you were trying to praise Patton again, giving him credit for something he had less to do with than usual. I'm assuming that you're saying the Master Sergeant represented Patton, Dietrich his Panzer Armee.

I've done a little research. I'd like your opinion (indeed any thread readers opinion and help)because late war American OOBs are not a strongppoint for me.

Michael Reynolds Men of Steel tells me (and you claim you know and agree with this) that Dietrich surrendered to a Master Sergeant of the 36th on or shortly after 8 May.

Shelby Stanton's Order of Battle: US Army in WWII tells me the 36th joined XXI Corp on 27th April 1945. He also tells me it finished the war in Kustrin, Austria which supports the claim it was this unit Dietrich surrendered to as he was caught in Kustrin.

John Ellis's The World War II databook says 36 Division did indeed belong to XXI Corp and that XXI Corp belonged to the Seventh US Army on 30th April.

I'm not sure who commanded Seventh Army at this time except it was either General Patch or General Keyes, a fact I picked up from Carlo D'Este's book on Patton.

I'd appreciate any help corrodorating these facts, but if I'm correct, and 36th Division belonged to 7th Army, and Patton (as I understand it although you are the Forum "expert") commanded 3rd Army, how was the Master Sergeant of the 36th accepting the surrender of General Dietrich on behalf of General Patton [8|][&:].

Please correct me if I am wrong (a request I make to all thread readers. I'm interested in the truth. Whether I provide it or someone else corrects me is immaterial) , but if I am right Patton had absolutely nothing to do with this. Thus, on what do you base your assertion he surrendered to Patton?

Secondly, you seem to be suggesting Dietrich represented his Panzer Armee when he surrendered. However, since they surrendered separately, in another area, of their own volition, not because Dietrich was directing them to, how do you support this statement?

Regards,
IronDuke
(Other thread users, I'd appreciate any help nailing down the OOB for 36th at this point in the war, in case I'm wrong).

Oh, brother [8|]

Of all the things to argue in this thread and you choose this?

When I said "I know", I meant that Dietrich did not walk up to Patton and say "I surrender". [8|]

Frankly, I could care less to whom he or 6th army surrendered.

This is all incidental to what is under discussion.

As I have mentioned on numerous occasions:

You debate the obscure; and argue the inconsequential.

Have fun sorting all this out [>:]

[&:]

Why do you object so to being corrected? You introduced Patton, I merely pointed out he had nothing whatsoever to do with this (I presume this is a disappointingly ungracious way of saying you agree with me and you now retract the statement "He surrendered to General George S Patton"?) My problem is that basic innaccuracies like this make me question and double-check the facts you present before arguing with you. My disappointment is that when I find your facts are wrong, you suddenly decide I'm debating the obscure. If the circumstances of his surrender were so obscure and inconsequential, why did you make a statement about it? If you find it worthwhile making a statement in a forum about something, why am I the one debating the obscure when I correct it?

As for

When I said "I know", I meant that Dietrich did not walk up to Patton and say "I surrender".

Fair enough, then please explain (to wrap this aspect of it all up) why you mentioned Patton in this context at all? He didn't (as you've said) personally accept Dietrich's surrender and he didn't command 36th Division, so why did you mention him if you knew this? It is misleading.

You seemed to move the debate on to Malmedy, but, in light of the above, I must now double check this episode out, before presenting an opinion. I know Reynolds in his biography of Peiper had a few things to say about this episode, including a theory of his own to consider.

However, I'll be careful not to disagree with any "facts" you've presented, as I don't want to be guilty of debating obscurities again. [8|]

IronDuke

Ironduke:

I don't mean to be flippant with you. However, the question of Dietrich's surrender was immaterial to the discussions at hand. Even now I find it irrelevant. It really is a trivial WW2 issue which has no bearing on any important discussions.

On such minor points of fact I usually don't spend much time on them.

On the other hand, on major points of fact, I will spend a great deal of time researching them.

The fact that you cannot seem to distinquish between these two things (minor vs major points of fact) is what I find frustrating about debating you.

The discussion originally centered around several hundred US soldiers and civilians being murdered by SS troops in the Ardennes.

You, however, decided to focus on to whom Dietrich surrendered at the end of the war.

However, since you have now made this a point of contention, I will now devote my attention to this question.



Websites


Here is a list of websites that all state that Dietrich surrendered to troops under Patton's command:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Dietrich


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... trich.html


http://members.tripod.com/~SSPzComdr/SeppDietrich.html


http://www20.brinkster.com/tompoulsen/1 ... erdiv.html



The Composition of Third Army



Your sources state that Dietrich surrendered to the 36 Division which belonged to XXI Corp and that XXI Corp belonged to the Seventh US Army on 30th April.

Note the above date 30th April.

However, what your sources fail to mention is that starting near the first of May, and throughout the month of May, Patton's Third Army was absorbing HUNDREDS of separate units under its command, including V Corps, and elements of XV Corps (from General Patch) and many other divisions (Ladislas, Farago, The Last Days of Patton (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1981), p. 66).

As Patton, himself, stated by May 4, 1945 these absorbed divisions "gives us the biggest Army we have had. . ." (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p. 696).

In early May, 1945 Patton commanded troops throughout Germany and Czechoslovakia. And according to (D'Este, p 727), Patton's forces advanced to the Danube, and were primed to advance into Austria and Czechoslovakia.

While Patton was instructed to attack northeast into Czechoslovakia with the XII and V Corps (op cit.), he was busy planning to move his headquarters near Munich (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p. 699).

So two questions remain:

1) What unit did Dietrich surrender to on May 8, 1945? Your sources state that the 36 Division belonged to the Seventh US Army on 30th April. I am assuming your source is correct. However, it may not be.


2) And was this unit (after May 1, 1945) placed under Patton's command?

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Golf33

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Further, if the massacre was confined to just Malmedy, then there could be room for doubt.

However, in addition to the 81 GIs murdered at Malmedy, an additional 300 or so US soldiers and 80+ Belgium civilians were also murdered in 12 different locations, and all along Peiper's route of advance.

Is this all just coincidence?

It does seem interesting that although an Army Commander is apparently issuing orders for a 'wave of terror', only one battlegroup from one division under his command has ever been accused of carrying out those orders. Since Peiper's men were by no means the only members of that division, or that corps, or that army, to fight in the front line during the campaign, what was it that stopped the others behaving in the same despicable manner?

This is not to suggest that Dietrich didn't issue such an order, rather it lends credibility to his admission that he did, since doing so was counter to his interests if it was possible to blame the whole thing on Peiper instead.

Regards
33

Good questions.

This issue was tackled by a few people, including Cole in the Official History. He stated that Peiper had fought on the East Front, and so was used to this type of activity. Most of all the murders took place along his route of advance.

The fact that others did not do anything similar could be based on the fact that their soldierly qualities forbade them from doing such despicable things. It is well known that Rommel tore up such orders from Hitler when he was in command of the Afrika Korps.

Perhaps certain people and commanders are prone to this sort of thing. For example the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Golf33

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Further, if the massacre was confined to just Malmedy, then there could be room for doubt.

However, in addition to the 81 GIs murdered at Malmedy, an additional 300 or so US soldiers and 80+ Belgium civilians were also murdered in 12 different locations, and all along Peiper's route of advance.

Is this all just coincidence?

It does seem interesting that although an Army Commander is apparently issuing orders for a 'wave of terror', only one battlegroup from one division under his command has ever been accused of carrying out those orders. Since Peiper's men were by no means the only members of that division, or that corps, or that army, to fight in the front line during the campaign, what was it that stopped the others behaving in the same despicable manner?

This is not to suggest that Dietrich didn't issue such an order, rather it lends credibility to his admission that he did, since doing so was counter to his interests if it was possible to blame the whole thing on Peiper instead.

Regards
33

A fair point, not least because Peiper's unit seem to have sent prisoners to the rear on a number of occasions during this battle, so it is hard to believe they decided to adhere to some Fuhrer order at this one point (and just this one point) during the fighting.

From what I've read, it seems there were two possible solutions.

Firstly, the fact the KG was well out in front, in the midst of a narrow corridor they had punched into American lines meant they had few supporting troops to transport prisoners to the rear with. They were also pressing on as fast as they could, and with US troops on three sides, they were conscious they couldn't just leave a company sized American force behind astride their line of communication. This doesn't excuse what happened, but it could be some Officer (maybe not even Peiper) decided there was nothing else to do. It's a warcrime and the sort of solution that would not have troubled much of the SS, but not premeditated.

Also, why take them prisoner at all? If obeying some sort of "no prisoners" order, you are disobeying it by accepting the surrender in the first place. It's far easier to simply accept no surrender. This sort of battlefield execution is a common feature of warfare and all sides practised it (both with and without higher sanction) at some point in the war. So, again, I don't think premeditation comes into it.

Secondly, many of the accounts from survivors agree there were two to three single shots first, and there was some commotion within the body of American troops before the firing started. There is a suggestion that this German Tank crewman who admitted firing first, was firing at some Americans who were attempting to escape. The main body stood fast, but the shooting caused other Germans round about to open fire, and it became a massacre. The single shots may well have caused the rest of the prisoners to panic and start to run, giving the Germans the impression there was a general escape attempt on and causing them to open fire (shooting and killing escaping prisoners is not a warcrime, I believe).

What I've seen suggests about half the Americans got away from the massacre, which again doesn't suggest it was premeditated. You don't set up massacres like this in such a way as to give the men a good chance to escape. We'll probably never know the exact reasons. I don't buy the Fuhrer order, though, simply because it doesn't look premeditated and Peiper's unit had taken prisoners up to that point without incident. I can't see why he would suddenly obey a Fuhrer order after ignoring it for days.

This isn't to excuse the SS. Mohnke had form, IIRC, being part of a unit that murdered some British infantry in France in 1940 (anyone confirm this for me?) I remember some incident with Canadians with Meyer in Normandy as well, and the atrocity at Oradour was committed by members of Das Reich. However, I think these and Malmedy display not a matter of policy (I'm not talking about the east here which remains a different matter altogether) but rather the actions of men who had a lower conscience threshold than the regular Army. This sort of behaviour was a more acceptable option for them than it was for others.

Regards,
IronDuke

Ironduke:

You raise valid points.

However, if the issue centred just around Malmedy, then doubt creeps in.

However, what about the other 300+ GI POWs who were murdered and the 80+ Belgium civilians who were murdered in the Ardennes?

It is interesting that in discussions about Malmedy in books and articles, many of these other murders are rarely mentioned, which casts a larger light on the systematic murders of US POWs by certain SS units.

[Kevinugly]

I go away and look what happens, I miss all the 'interesting' stuff[:D]

Anyway, regarding Malmedy and the massacres of various groups of prisoners by both sides I think the following link should help resolve a few issues

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... medy2.html

I won't even begin to try and precis the document but it highlights the confusion over what actually happened at Malmedy, who was responsible, other 'incidents' that occured and the sham of a trial at Dachau in 1946.

[IronDuke_slith]

Ironduke:

I don't mean to be flippant with you. However, the question of Dietrich's surrender was immaterial to the discussions at hand. Even now I find it irrelevant. It really is a trivial WW2 issue which has no bearing on any important discussions.

Indeed, but who mentioned it first. We have a duty to be correct about anything we post, however trivial.

On such minor points of fact I usually don't spend much time on them.

On the other hand, on major points of fact, I will spend a great deal of time researching them.

The fact that you cannot seem to distinquish between these two things (minor vs major points of fact) is what I find frustrating about debating you.

I didn't debate you, merely corrected your facts where I believed there was innaccuracy.

The discussion originally centered around several hundred US soldiers and civilians being murdered by SS troops in the Ardennes.

You, however, decided to focus on to whom Dietrich surrendered at the end of the war.

I have posted on this as well. As I said, my initial post was merely to correct facts, not pass comment. I focused on it because it was wrong.

Websites


Here is a list of websites that all state that Dietrich surrendered to troops under Patton's command:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Dietrich


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... trich.html


http://members.tripod.com/~SSPzComdr/SeppDietrich.html


http://www20.brinkster.com/tompoulsen/1 ... erdiv.html

I believe I have stated before I don't like websites, they are not peer reviewed and usually written from second hand sources because (quite understandably) they are written by enthusiastic amateur historians using resources at their disposal. However, what was noticeable was that they all use almost the same wording for this statement linking Dietrich and Patton, but don't give a source. My guess is their source is the same. I don't think we have four sources here, just four sources repeating something they've heard as none present evidence, but it's a moot point. They present no evidence, just make the statement.


[

b]The Composition of Third Army[/b]



Your sources state that Dietrich surrendered to the 36 Division which belonged to XXI Corp and that XXI Corp belonged to the Seventh US Army on 30th April.

Note the above date 30th April.

Noted.

However, what your sources fail to mention is that starting near the first of May, Third Army was absorbing HUNDREDS of separate units under its command, including V Corps, and elements of XV Corps (from General Patch) and many other divisions (Ladislas, Farago, The Last Days of Patton (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1981), p. 66).

V Corp was transferred on 4th May. The source that tells me this (Weigley) tells me it raised the strength of 3rd Army to the largest it ever was (540 000 men). Therefore, I'm guessing the other units came under Patton's control as Governor of Bavaria after the war. Further to this point, I can't trace any transfer of XV Corp before war's end. On the 5th May, it was still under Devers, because he accepted the German First Army's surrender at XV Corp HQ.

In early May, 1945 Patton commanded troops throughout Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Source? I'm guessing this actually refers to mid-late May, when he became Governer of Bavaria. 3rd Army had ended the war in Czechoslovakia, so in addition to his command of them, he might well have taken control of forces in Southern Germany as Governer of Bavaria. However, I wouldn't have thought this would have been early May, as he couldn't have formally taken up this post until after the formal cessation of hostilities.

While Patton was instructed to attack northeast into Czechoslovakia with the XII and V Corps (op cit.), he was busy planning to move his headquarters near Munich (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p. 699).

The move to Munich happened on 23rd May according to D'Este, presumably in line with his capacity as Governor of Bavaria.

So two questions remain:

1) What unit did Dietrich surrender to on May 8, 1945? Your sources state that the 36 Division belonged to the Seventh US Army on 30th April. I am assuming your source is correct. However, it may not be.

My source was Reynolds book on 1st SS Panzer Corp. He also gives the place Dietrich surrendered (Kufstein) which was where a separate source (Shelby Stanton) says 36 Division ended the war. A third source (James Lucas Hitler's Enforcers) also states Dietrich was captured at Kufstein by 36 US Division. If you think they may be wrong, please state why, and your source for your suspicion. I don't believe it's enoguh to cast doubt on these sources just because they disagree with you.

2) And was this unit (after May 1, 1945) placed under Patton's command?

The real question is was this unit placed under Patton's command before they captured Dietrich? It is quite feasible they were placed under Patton's command eventually (it might explain why Dietrich and Patton were originally linked) because Patton was Military Commander of Bavaria after the war, and his authority may have extended into Austria. However, I can find nothing to suggest they belonged to him when they captured Dietrich (or after that, although maybe others have information on this).

However, having hit the websites versus history books argument, it may be best to leave this for the Forum to judge for themselves, and move onto Malmedy. We've both presented, let them judge.

IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Golf33


It does seem interesting that although an Army Commander is apparently issuing orders for a 'wave of terror', only one battlegroup from one division under his command has ever been accused of carrying out those orders. Since Peiper's men were by no means the only members of that division, or that corps, or that army, to fight in the front line during the campaign, what was it that stopped the others behaving in the same despicable manner?

This is not to suggest that Dietrich didn't issue such an order, rather it lends credibility to his admission that he did, since doing so was counter to his interests if it was possible to blame the whole thing on Peiper instead.

Regards
33

A fair point, not least because Peiper's unit seem to have sent prisoners to the rear on a number of occasions during this battle, so it is hard to believe they decided to adhere to some Fuhrer order at this one point (and just this one point) during the fighting.

From what I've read, it seems there were two possible solutions.

Firstly, the fact the KG was well out in front, in the midst of a narrow corridor they had punched into American lines meant they had few supporting troops to transport prisoners to the rear with. They were also pressing on as fast as they could, and with US troops on three sides, they were conscious they couldn't just leave a company sized American force behind astride their line of communication. This doesn't excuse what happened, but it could be some Officer (maybe not even Peiper) decided there was nothing else to do. It's a warcrime and the sort of solution that would not have troubled much of the SS, but not premeditated.

Also, why take them prisoner at all? If obeying some sort of "no prisoners" order, you are disobeying it by accepting the surrender in the first place. It's far easier to simply accept no surrender. This sort of battlefield execution is a common feature of warfare and all sides practised it (both with and without higher sanction) at some point in the war. So, again, I don't think premeditation comes into it.

Secondly, many of the accounts from survivors agree there were two to three single shots first, and there was some commotion within the body of American troops before the firing started. There is a suggestion that this German Tank crewman who admitted firing first, was firing at some Americans who were attempting to escape. The main body stood fast, but the shooting caused other Germans round about to open fire, and it became a massacre. The single shots may well have caused the rest of the prisoners to panic and start to run, giving the Germans the impression there was a general escape attempt on and causing them to open fire (shooting and killing escaping prisoners is not a warcrime, I believe).

What I've seen suggests about half the Americans got away from the massacre, which again doesn't suggest it was premeditated. You don't set up massacres like this in such a way as to give the men a good chance to escape. We'll probably never know the exact reasons. I don't buy the Fuhrer order, though, simply because it doesn't look premeditated and Peiper's unit had taken prisoners up to that point without incident. I can't see why he would suddenly obey a Fuhrer order after ignoring it for days.

This isn't to excuse the SS. Mohnke had form, IIRC, being part of a unit that murdered some British infantry in France in 1940 (anyone confirm this for me?) I remember some incident with Canadians with Meyer in Normandy as well, and the atrocity at Oradour was committed by members of Das Reich. However, I think these and Malmedy display not a matter of policy (I'm not talking about the east here which remains a different matter altogether) but rather the actions of men who had a lower conscience threshold than the regular Army. This sort of behaviour was a more acceptable option for them than it was for others.

Regards,
IronDuke

Ironduke:

You raise valid points.

However, if the issue centred just around Malmedy, then doubt creeps in.

However, what about the other 300+ GI POWs who were murdered and the 80+ Belgium civilians who were murdered in the Ardennes?

It is interesting that in discussions about Malmedy in books and articles, many of these other murders are rarely mentioned, which casts a larger light on the systematic murders of US POWs by certain SS units.

Von Rom,
Good point. I did hear that the Gestapo followed the German forces into some areas to settle old scores. I remember one massacre discovered in a cellar with over a dozen dead, but this was done by the Gestapo. I guess we'd need to discuss on a case by case basis. Do you have links or details to these killings?

The same applies to the POWs. I think we'd need to review the circumstances of the GI murders, to see if we can detect policy. Do you have anything further on these?

Regards,
IronDuke