Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

Von Rom

I know

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 .

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).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

Von Rom

I know

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 .

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

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".

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

quote:

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

quote:

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?

Steve Golf33 Long

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

Von Rom

I know

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 .

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

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".

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

quote:

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.

IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

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

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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/jsource/biography/Dietrich.html


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


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

quote:

b]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.

quote:

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).

quote:

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

quote:

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).

quote:

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.

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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/jsource/biography/Dietrich.html


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


http://www20.brinkster.com/tompoulsen/1stsspanzerdiv.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.


[

quote:

b]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.

Noted.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

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.

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

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

Well, you better be absolutely correct in everything you post, no matter how trivial it is. You do realize of course that this sort of thing will drive everyone crazy.

All I can say is you better be prepared to stand up to that same (and ridiculous) level of perfection in even the most trivial comment you make.

quote:

And I consider Dietrich's surrender to be very trivial. Something someone would find as a question in a WW2 trivia game.

quote:

Yet, you cannot seem to distinquish between the trivial and the important. This is very frustrating. So far we have wasted hours on what to me is truly an insignificant fact.

quote:

When I am looking for insignificant details such as birthdates, surrender dates, etc, I usually just look at a few websites, especially if they seem to be correct in most of the major issues.

quote:

As for the rest, I am not pitting websites against books; only that for minor things such as these I will look at several websites. And you'll note they all agree on who Dietrich surrendered to. There are many more websites than these.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ID:

quote:

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.

This is fine.

But your sources stated that the 36th Division was part of 7th Army up until April 30th, 1945.

As I have shown HUNDREDS of units started to come under Patton's command AFTER May 1, 1945.

So my question is this:

Who had command over the 36th Division on May 8, 1945 (the date of Dietrich's surrender?). Was it still under 7th Army or under Patton's command?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

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.

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

quote:

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.

What is your source for this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Well, you better be absolutely correct in everything you post, no matter how trivial it is. You do realize of course that this sort of thing will drive everyone crazy.

All I can say is you better be prepared to stand up to that same (and ridiculous) level of perfection in even the most trivial comment you make.

I welcome any and all corrections. If someone has a better and more accurate source than me, I welcome the correction, because it gives me a new title to add to my book wish list.

quote:

And I consider Dietrich's surrender to be very trivial. Something someone would find as a question in a WW2 trivia game.

I've never seen a WWII trivia game so couldn't comment on this. Are there any you would recommend?

quote:

Yet, you cannot seem to distinquish between the trivial and the important. This is very frustrating. So far we have wasted hours on what to me is truly an insignificant fact.

I note from your later posts that you compounded this problem by finding out even more. I've said everything I have to say and am happy to let this rest if you are.

quote:

When I am looking for insignificant details such as birthdates, surrender dates, etc, I usually just look at a few websites, especially if they seem to be correct in most of the major issues.

We have a difference of approach, then. I will have to ensure I continue to use respected authorities as your comments above suggest my every word will be scrutinised for error.

quote:

As for the rest, I am not pitting websites against books; only that for minor things such as these I will look at several websites. And you'll note they all agree on who Dietrich surrendered to. There are many more websites than these.

I don't doubt what they say, I am just not convinced they are correct. Rather like the research you did on D'Este's work which we never got to see as the thread was unfortunately locked, my research on this point suggested there was room for doubt over who he surrendered to. Actually, there is no doubt, it was a US Master Sergeant of the 36th Infantry, I just wonder why people felt it necessary to credit Patton rather than Bradley or the poor Sergeant himself.

Whatever, I've told everything I could find out and propose to move on to Malmedy.

Regards,
IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ID:

quote:

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.

This is fine.

But your sources stated that the 36th Division was part of 7th Army up until April 30th, 1945.

As I have shown HUNDREDS of units started to come under Patton's command AFTER May 1, 1945.

So my question is this:

Who had command over the 36th Division on May 8, 1945 (the date of Dietrich's surrender?). Was it still under 7th Army or under Patton's command?

I took another look at Stanton, widely regarded as the US Army OOB bible. He lists 36th Division as joining 7th Army on 29th March 1945. He goes onto say it joined XXI Corp on 27 April 45. He lists no other assignments after that. Not happy with a blank, I checked what he says about 1st Division. This is relevant because 1st Division is one of the units we know did cross to Patton (as part of V Corp) in early May.

For 1st Division, he shows it joining V Corp on 30 April, and joining 3rd Army on 6 May 1945 (as part of V Corp). Weigley thought it was the 4 May, but it may be one was saying when the order was given, the other when operational control was passed. Whatever, Stanton records the passing of 1st Division to 3rd Army control in early May.

For 36 Division, there is no such record, leading me to conclude that in the absence of any further info, 36 Division beloned to 7th Army on 8 May 1945. Stanton records when any Division changed Army, as the 1 Division record shows, but there is nothing against 36 Division's name suggesting it left 7th Army. I've said all I can on the matter.

Regards,
IronDuke

quote:

For 36 Division, there is no such record, leading me to conclude that in the absence of any further info, 36 Division beloned to 7th Army on 8 May 1945. Stanton records when any Division changed Army, as the 1 Division record shows, but there is nothing against 36 Division's name suggesting it left 7th Army. I've said all I can on the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

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.

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

quote:

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.

What is your source for this?

Which bit? The big chunk was based on Reynold's biography of Peiper. The second bit was a TV documentary in which they took veterans back to the scene of their service to discuss the issues. It is not what I usually refer to as sources, hence I qualified it by saying "I did hear." The veterans discussed the incident in detail, but I was hoping others would know more about it and have more qualified sources to discuss it with.

IronDuke

quote:

Which bit? The big chunk was based on Reynold's biography of Peiper. The second bit was a TV documentary in which they took veterans back to the scene of their service to discuss the issues. It is not what I usually refer to as sources, hence I qualified it by saying "I did hear." The veterans discussed the incident in detail, but I was hoping others would know more about it and have more qualified sources to discuss it with.

quote:

Rather like the research you did on D'Este's work which we never got to see as the thread was unfortunately locked, my research on this point suggested there was room for doubt over who he surrendered to.

quote:

Actually, there is no doubt, it was a US Master Sergeant of the 36th Infantry, I just wonder why people felt it necessary to credit Patton rather than Bradley or the poor Sergeant himself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

Oh man. I feel sorry for you guys. Being trapped in a lame argument is never very useful to anyone. Anyways, as far as who is responsible for what, no one should forget that regardless of little tid bits of information the SS were a nasty bunch of guys borne out of a fundamentally infantile and morally corrupt roots. What percent were some of these guys responsible for this bad news? Bottom line... MORE THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Trials conducted improperly? I'm sure... that's what happens when things are obvious, you get sloppy. They should all have been executed. The only shame would be that they can only be executed once, unlike the number of people that they themselves were responsible for executing.

Tomo

quote:

I have shown that Patton, the 36th Divison, and the 80th Division were all in Austria at the time of the surrender of many high ranking German officers.

quote:

I should also note that NO major historian has mentioned any of this; I had to piece it together.

quote:

This does raise doubt that since Patton was a four star general, he would have been senior officer in Austria at the time of the surrenders, and would have received credit for these surrenders.

As I understand the chain of command, ANY senior officer present, usually has authority.

quote:

Rather like the research you did on D'Este's work which we never got to see as the thread was unfortunately locked, my research on this point suggested there was room for doubt over who he surrendered to.

quote:

Be careful what you wish for

If you wish, since you originally dared me, then simply start a new thread, and in a couple of short paragraghs, present D'Este's view on who originated Operation Cobra.

quote:

Actually, there is no doubt, it was a US Master Sergeant of the 36th Infantry, I just wonder why people felt it necessary to credit Patton rather than Bradley or the poor Sergeant himself.

quote:

Well, most people know that enemy officers surrender to the most senior Allied officer present. Since Patton was a four star general in Austria at the time, the credit would go to him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ID:

quote:

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.

This is fine.

But your sources stated that the 36th Division was part of 7th Army up until April 30th, 1945.

As I have shown HUNDREDS of units started to come under Patton's command AFTER May 1, 1945.

So my question is this:

Who had command over the 36th Division on May 8, 1945 (the date of Dietrich's surrender?). Was it still under 7th Army or under Patton's command?

I took another look at Stanton, widely regarded as the US Army OOB bible. He lists 36th Division as joining 7th Army on 29th March 1945. He goes onto say it joined XXI Corp on 27 April 45. He lists no other assignments after that. Not happy with a blank, I checked what he says about 1st Division. This is relevant because 1st Division is one of the units we know did cross to Patton (as part of V Corp) in early May.

For 1st Division, he shows it joining V Corp on 30 April, and joining 3rd Army on 6 May 1945 (as part of V Corp). Weigley thought it was the 4 May, but it may be one was saying when the order was given, the other when operational control was passed. Whatever, Stanton records the passing of 1st Division to 3rd Army control in early May.

For 36 Division, there is no such record, leading me to conclude that in the absence of any further info, 36 Division beloned to 7th Army on 8 May 1945. Stanton records when any Division changed Army, as the 1 Division record shows, but there is nothing against 36 Division's name suggesting it left 7th Army. I've said all I can on the matter.

Regards,
IronDuke

quote:

For 36 Division, there is no such record, leading me to conclude that in the absence of any further info, 36 Division beloned to 7th Army on 8 May 1945. Stanton records when any Division changed Army, as the 1 Division record shows, but there is nothing against 36 Division's name suggesting it left 7th Army. I've said all I can on the matter.

This does not necessarily mean that the 36th Division was not transferred to Patton's command.

Let me explain:

After checking on various divisions, I noticed that several divisions were used as "floaters" - ie they were transferred between commands on numerous occasions, even for very short periods of time.

For example: the 10th division was transferred to Patton's command for 48 hours when he started to move into Germany. He wanted to keep it, and argued with Bradley over its transfer.

Similarly, the 71st division was also placed under Patton's command. Yet this division does not appear in Third Army's OoB.

The same could be said for many other divisions.

The 36th Division, in its unit history, talks about the Seventh Army as though it was a separate unit.

For example, the unit history states that while the Seventh Army moved to liberate Bavaria, the 36th Division remained in Austria. What are we to make of this?

The fact that your sources do not go beyond April 30, 1945 still leaves a blank. The transfer of the 36th could have been temporary.

I would like to see conclusive proof on the matter.

Even so, since Patton was a four star general, wouldn't his authority be important in Austria at this time as senior commander?