Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
You STILL don't understand the definition of hearsay.

And I very much doubt you do either. Hearsay is a subject too complex to be defined in a dictionary, or handful of tidy definitions, it's a topic which takes many weeks of study in the field of Evidence, and that would also presume that we were all in under identical law so that we were discussing the identical concept.

If you did understand what the word meant, you'd have attempted to show how this statement could be an exception to hearsay, which it most probably would be in English Law, and admissible in the imaginary court which appears to have been constructed for this thread.

I quite agree with you, this thread has departed the realm of discussion, englightenment and learning, and degenerated into points scoring, funny how that appears to happen every time Patton is either the subject, or tangenital to a thread.

Forgive the intrusion, but I couldn't sit back and let you butcher the term hearsay any longer.

quote:

And I very much doubt you do either. Hearsay is a subject too complex to be defined in a dictionary, or handful of tidy definitions, it's a topic which takes many weeks of study in the field of Evidence, and that would also presume that we were all in under identical law so that we were discussing the identical concept.

Hearsay is quite easy to understand actually.

That is why we have LEGAL DICTIONARIES.


Hearsay:

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.

http://www.thelegaldictionary.com/legal-term-details/Hearsay


In other words, if you tell me something, I CAN testify to it in a court of law. This is called Direct Testimony.

On the other hand, if you tell me something that you heard from someone else, I CANNOT testify to it in a court of law. This is called Hearsay.

Dietrich testified in court under oath that he PERSONALLY heard Hitler talk about the "wave of terror order". This is called Direct Testimony and is allowed in a court of law.

What in all this do you and GuitarJames fail to understand?

I am well aware of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. But they do NOT apply here, because Dietrich was personally giving direct ORAL testimony to what he heard. That is why his testimony was allowed in court.

quote:

Von Rom
Few historians even mention the fact that Patton was even in Austria on May 7, 1945. D'Este leaves us with the false impression that Patton remained in Regensburg the whole time.

quote:

Von Rom
If you will recall, this entire discussion started when Ironduke brought up Dietrich's surrender to Patton and he mentioned that Dietrich did not direct elements of the 6th SS panzer Army to surrender.

quote:

Von Rom
I have also shown that Dietrich ORDERED several of his divisions west, where they surrendered to Third Army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I've been trying to find Dietrich's statement that he allegedly made under oath. MacDonald doesn't mention it at all, the 'Jewish Library' link that I gave above only mentions that the US prosecuters tried to make use of it during the trial of Peiper & co. at Dachau and failed. Cole makes a meal of it in his 'Official History' but doesn't quote verbatim. I'm starting to wonder whether Dietrich ever said anything about the 'Terror' order whilst under oath since there surely would be a written record of it - it's one of the big war trials from the perspective of the American military after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Patton and the Undersecretary flew to Austria on May 7, 1945.

They stayed the night in Austria:

"We had a very pleasant evening and I [Patton] found him [the Undersecretary] extremely talkative and had the good sense to let him do the talking" (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p. 697).

Ladislas Farago in his Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964), mentions that Patton was kept very busy in Austria and visited several areas.

The press conference in Regensburg on May 8, 1945 was held in the morning. But at what time in the morning?

Patton is usually an early riser. Morning lasts from sunrise (about 7:00 am) until noon. So, if the plane trip took about one or one and half hours to make it back to Regensburg, then Patton had plenty of time to do so, and still be at the morning press conference.

Therefore, Patton was in Austria on May 7 and 8, 1945. In fact, as we all know, May 8 arrived at 12:01 am.

So, you're telling us that Dietrich surrendered to Patton because Patton woke up in Austria the day Dietrich surrendered. This is wonderful. I couldn't make this up, no one would believe me.

Patton's quote about the evening being pleasant doesn't actually state where it was pleasant. You merely state they stayed the night in Austria. Can you quote (with page ref etc) where it states that they stayed the night in Austria.

What's been confusing me is that when you talk about the surrender of 6th SS Panzer Armee, you emphasise their capture by elements of 3rd Army (You don't mention which division, I've hard to work this out separately). Here, Patton gets the credit because his troops received the surrender. When you talk about the capture of Dietrich you emphasise that he surrendered to Patton because you believe Patton woke up in Austria (Sorry, I can't help smiling at this) the day Mr & Mrs Dietrich surrendered. So, Patton gets the credit either way (very handy, that).

Which is the overriding principle, because if it's the latter, than when the LSSAH surrendered on 9 May, Patton had gone back to Regensburg hadn't he, and there would have been another senior Officer in Austria who should be credited. The point is moot, except that it serves to illustrate the hoops I think you get forced to jump through when you argue, because you seem unable to admit you might be wrong. Of course, if we can ascertain where General Devers's HQ was on 8 May, then the argument may be over because he outranked Patton and if his HQ was in Austria, then....

For the record, Dietrich clearly surrendered to members of Seventh Army, a fact finally proven by his debriefing which was carried out by members of Seventh Army intelligence, whose chain of command led through General Patch or Keyes to General Devers (who outranked Patton). Judging from Dietrich's movements on the day he surrendered, I think Patton must have long been in Germany when Dietrich was picked up by the men of 7th Army in Austria. If you want to claim credit for 3rd Army for accepting the surrender of 6th SS Panzer Armee, it seems strange you work so hard to deny the veterans of 7th US Army (Patton's first Army command IIRC) the credit for capturing Dietrich. I wonder what motives drives such an attempt, but it is not for me to say. For the record, had Eisenhower been touring austria with the Under Secretary on 8th May, I don't think anyone would have claimed Dietrich surrendered to him. Eisenhower certainly wouldn't have claimed it. The last irony, is that I don't think General Patton would have claimed the surrender of Dietrich either. From what I've picked up about the General in the last few weeks, I don't think he would have dreamed of claiming the credit from men of 7th Army. It is a shame you do it in his name.

IronDuke

quote:

So, you're telling us that Dietrich surrendered to Patton because Patton woke up in Austria the day Dietrich surrendered. This is wonderful. I couldn't make this up, no one would believe me.

quote:

What's been confusing me is that when you talk about the surrender of 6th SS Panzer Armee, you emphasise their capture by elements of 3rd Army (You don't mention which division, I've hard to work this out separately). Here, Patton gets the credit because his troops received the surrender. When you talk about the capture of Dietrich you emphasise that he surrendered to Patton because you believe Patton woke up in Austria (Sorry, I can't help smiling at this) the day Mr & Mrs Dietrich surrendered. So, Patton gets the credit either way (very handy, that).

quote:

If you want to claim credit for 3rd Army for accepting the surrender of 6th SS Panzer Armee, it seems strange you work so hard to deny the veterans of 7th US Army (Patton's first Army command IIRC) the credit for capturing Dietrich. I wonder what motives drives such an attempt, but it is not for me to say. For the record, had Eisenhower been touring austria with the Under Secretary on 8th May, I don't think anyone would have claimed Dietrich surrendered to him. Eisenhower certainly wouldn't have claimed it. The last irony, is that I don't think General Patton would have claimed the surrender of Dietrich either. From what I've picked up about the General in the last few weeks, I don't think he would have dreamed of claiming the credit from men of 7th Army. It is a shame you do it in his name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Hearsay is quite easy to understand actually.

That is why we have LEGAL DICTIONARIES.

A bit like someone using WW2 for dummies and being able to discuss with the depth and understanding you appear to possess for the subject.

Let's use this nice mickey mouse site for the general rule

quote:


http://oasis.gov.ie/justice/evidence/hearsay_evidence.html
A statement made out of court cannot be introduced in court to prove the content of the statement. For example, if you are a witness in a trial, you cannot give the following evidence "My mother told me she saw the accused at 3pm". This is evidence of a statement made out of court and it is "hearsay". For that evidence to be introduced, your mother must take the stand and describe what she herself saw

That should do. Now, "acting on Hitlers orders" does not equal "I heard Hitler order me to..."

Now forgive me if there is something else you're basing your assumption on, but unless he's testifying that Hitler himself personally ordered him to carry out these orders, then this is classic hearsay. At no point during the thread though have I seen that used, althouth given the vebose nature of it, it's entirely possible I missed that quote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
You STILL don't understand the definition of hearsay.

And I very much doubt you do either. Hearsay is a subject too complex to be defined in a dictionary, or handful of tidy definitions, it's a topic which takes many weeks of study in the field of Evidence, and that would also presume that we were all in under identical law so that we were discussing the identical concept.

If you did understand what the word meant, you'd have attempted to show how this statement could be an exception to hearsay, which it most probably would be in English Law, and admissible in the imaginary court which appears to have been constructed for this thread.

I quite agree with you, this thread has departed the realm of discussion, englightenment and learning, and degenerated into points scoring, funny how that appears to happen every time Patton is either the subject, or tangenital to a thread.

Forgive the intrusion, but I couldn't sit back and let you butcher the term hearsay any longer.

quote:

And I very much doubt you do either. Hearsay is a subject too complex to be defined in a dictionary, or handful of tidy definitions, it's a topic which takes many weeks of study in the field of Evidence, and that would also presume that we were all in under identical law so that we were discussing the identical concept.

Hearsay is quite easy to understand actually.

That is why we have LEGAL DICTIONARIES.


Hearsay:

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.

http://www.thelegaldictionary.com/legal-term-details/Hearsay


In other words, if you tell me something, I CAN testify to it in a court of law. This is called Direct Testimony.

On the other hand, if you tell me something that you heard from someone else, I CANNOT testify to it in a court of law. This is called Hearsay.

Dietrich testified in court under oath that he PERSONALLY heard Hitler talk about the "wave of terror order". This is called Direct Testimony and is allowed in a court of law.

What in all this do you and GuitarJames fail to understand?

I am well aware of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. But they do NOT apply here, because Dietrich was personally giving direct ORAL testimony to what he heard. That is why his testimony was allowed in court.

Why do you keep emphasising this evidence? At the Malmedy trial, Dietrich rescinded all his extra-judicial statements (along with many others) claiming they had been extracted under duress during interrogation. Why do you want to use these words, when Dietrich first made statements, then denied they were the truth. Even if there had been an order, no court (much less a Historian) is going to uncritically accept evidence when a defendant or witness makes statements and then later rescinds them. Why do you place such emphasis on it?


IronDuke

quote:

Why do you keep emphasising this evidence? At the Malmedy trial, Dietrich rescinded all his extra-judicial statements (along with many others) claiming they had been extracted under duress during interrogation. Why do you want to use these words, when Dietrich first made statements, then denied they were the truth. Even if there had been an order, no court (much less a Historian) is going to uncritically accept evidence when a defendant or witness makes statements and then later rescinds them. Why do you place such emphasis on it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Hearsay is quite easy to understand actually.

That is why we have LEGAL DICTIONARIES.

A bit like someone using WW2 for dummies and being able to discuss with the depth and understanding you appear to possess for the subject.

Let's use this nice mickey mouse site for the general rule

quote:


http://oasis.gov.ie/justice/evidence/hearsay_evidence.html
A statement made out of court cannot be introduced in court to prove the content of the statement. For example, if you are a witness in a trial, you cannot give the following evidence "My mother told me she saw the accused at 3pm". This is evidence of a statement made out of court and it is "hearsay". For that evidence to be introduced, your mother must take the stand and describe what she herself saw

That should do. Now, "acting on Hitlers orders" does not equal "I heard Hitler order me to..."

Now forgive me if there is something else you're basing your assumption on, but unless he's testifying that Hitler himself personally ordered him to carry out these orders, then this is classic hearsay. At no point during the thread though have I seen that used, althouth given the vebose nature of it, it's entirely possible I missed that quote.

Dinsdale, with all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

I am trying to be kind. But if this is the level of understanding about Dietrich's case, then no wonder we go around in circles. . .

The statement you gave above is HEARSAY.

Let me go through this again:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Dietrich PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him the order. Dietrich did not hear about Hitler's order from anyone else. Dietrich heard it directly from Hitler.

Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

What Dietrich gave in court is personal DIRECT TESTIMONY.

It is NOT hearsay.

In the books I have read on Dietrich's trial NEVER has the issue of his testimony being hearsay EVER been raised in over 50 years by ANY lawyers. Why? Because they know better.

Only you and GuitarJames have ever called Dietrich's direct testimony, hearsay.

quote:

Let me go through this again:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Dietrich PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him the order. Dietrich did not hear about Hitler's order from anyone else. Dietrich heard it directly from Hitler.

Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

What Dietrich gave in court is personal DIRECT TESTIMONY.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I've been trying to find Dietrich's statement that he allegedly made under oath. MacDonald doesn't mention it at all, the 'Jewish Library' link that I gave above only mentions that the US prosecuters tried to make use of it during the trial of Peiper & co. at Dachau and failed. Cole makes a meal of it in his 'Official History' but doesn't quote verbatim. I'm starting to wonder whether Dietrich ever said anything about the 'Terror' order whilst under oath since there surely would be a written record of it - it's one of the big war trials from the perspective of the American military after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I've been trying to find Dietrich's statement that he allegedly made under oath. MacDonald doesn't mention it at all, the 'Jewish Library' link that I gave above only mentions that the US prosecuters tried to make use of it during the trial of Peiper & co. at Dachau and failed. Cole makes a meal of it in his 'Official History' but doesn't quote verbatim. I'm starting to wonder whether Dietrich ever said anything about the 'Terror' order whilst under oath since there surely would be a written record of it - it's one of the big war trials from the perspective of the American military after all.

It's interesting how some historians can be so clueless on certain issues.

It can indeed be difficult trying to track down facts on certain subjects.

Perhaps a new thread on this subject might be helpful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Dinsdale, with all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

quote:


I am trying to be kind. But if this is the level of understanding about Dietrich's case, then no wonder we go around in circles. . .

quote:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

quote:


Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

quote:

books I have read on Dietrich's trial NEVER has the issue of his testimony being hearsay EVER been raised in over 50 years by ANY lawyers. Why? Because they know better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Von Rom
Few historians even mention the fact that Patton was even in Austria on May 7, 1945. D'Este leaves us with the false impression that Patton remained in Regensburg the whole time.

I think you have read too much Farago. You seem to read conspiracy into every turn. Patton (by your account) went on a jaunt to Austria with a visiting politician. Why would D'Este (or any other Historian) feel it had to be mentioned? He mentions that Patton met the Under Secretary at this time, why read anything into the fact he couldn't be bothered mentioning where? It is only important now because you're trying to prove Patton woke up (or was in Austrian airspace) in Austria when Dietrich surrendered. I can't believe D'Este omitted the fact the visit was in Austria in anticipation of taking my side in this argument.

quote:

Von Rom
If you will recall, this entire discussion started when Ironduke brought up Dietrich's surrender to Patton and he mentioned that Dietrich did not direct elements of the 6th SS panzer Army to surrender.

I am right. You just do not know enough of the circumstances of the surrender of 1st SS Panzer Corp et al to know this.
You seem to run two statements together.

quote:

Von Rom
I have also shown that Dietrich ORDERED several of his divisions west, where they surrendered to Third Army.

You make it sound as if Dietrich ordered his divisions westwards and ordered them to surrender. He did order them westwards, into concentration areas. The HJ and LSSAH were ordered (separately) to surrender at 6th SS Panzer Armee HQ by Dietrich's Deputy. Dietrich was not present. I believe he was then currently travelling to Zell am See where he arrived on 8th May to learn of the capitulation. In other words, some units of SS Panzer Armee were ordered to surrender before Dietrich even knew Germany had surrendered, because he was not at Sixth SS Panzer Armee HQ when the surrender was announced. This makes it difficult for him to order a surrender when he thought Germany was still fighting!
I have no doubt he was retreating westwards because he felt the end was near, but the demise of the SS Panzer Armee is not Dietrich's finest hour, as there are allegations he effectively disappeared for reasons of his own choosing to visit a theatre HQ to meet the Theatre Commander when his immediate Superior (Rendulic) was available. Rendulic gave the final order for the LSSAH to surrender (To the Russians, an order they disobeyed for obvious reasons).

Thus, Dietrich ordered his divisions west, but the actual surrender was ordered by other Officers.

IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I've been trying to find Dietrich's statement that he allegedly made under oath. MacDonald doesn't mention it at all, the 'Jewish Library' link that I gave above only mentions that the US prosecuters tried to make use of it during the trial of Peiper & co. at Dachau and failed. Cole makes a meal of it in his 'Official History' but doesn't quote verbatim. I'm starting to wonder whether Dietrich ever said anything about the 'Terror' order whilst under oath since there surely would be a written record of it - it's one of the big war trials from the perspective of the American military after all.

The whole trial was a mess, and Reynolds in his Peiper biography gives a good account of the mess, without revealing too much of the specifics of the courtroom.

The testimony Von Rom keeps quoting was important to the American case because it showed all troops were guilty of war crimes because all had received the order and understood it. The order (if accepted as evidence) demonstrates pre-meditation, and condemns those who receive and accept it. The irregularities that were alleged about the trial were quite extensive. Perhaps the key element that discredited the wave of terror order was that Peiper's men clearly took hundreds of prisoners both before and after the episode at Malmedy. In other words, they must have disobeyed Hitler's order more often than they obeyed it.

Reynolds says that all the statements were dictated by American interrogators, before being signed by the defendants. I suspect Dietrich said nothing of the sort, it was dictated for him. The evidence would not be accepted in a court of law, heresay or otherwise.

Some of the stuff is laughable. At one point, the US prosecutors persuaded a Belgian citizen to sign a dictated statement alleging his wife was killed by German tank fire. The statement never got read into the evidence, because before he signed it, the Belgian crossed out the words German tank and replaced them with American artillery.

I personally suspect it was a case of a German Panzer crewman suspecting or noticing an american or two at the back of the crowd set off across the fields in escape. (We know some Americans escaped quietly before the shooting started).
The US Soldiers understandably panicked as the shots rang out and began to run (Some witnesses reported the Officers ordered them to stand firm, perhaps realising what would happen). Trigger happy Waffen SS in the vicinity saw the panic and opened up, triggering more running and more shooting. Too many people escaped the massacre for me to be convinced it was wholly premeditated.

I don't buy the argument they were left behind by Peiper and picked up weapons before opening up on the next Waffen SS that came along. These were green troops if memory serves, who had just lost fifty of their number. They were an artillery unit, I seem to remember, and I can't believe they would have done this.

It is Peiper's responsibility. POWS are under the care of those that accept the surrender. I suspect in the general hurry of the advance, the men were not escorted or cared for properly and a tragic chain of events ensued.

In terms of a grudging admiration for Peiper, he seems to have lost all interest in anything when he was told at his interrogation some of his Camrades were providing evidence against him. It may not simply be a case of the Commanding Officer grimly accepting all responsibility. It's also difficult to warm to a man who served Heinrich Himmler on his personal staff for years and remained a NAZI until his death.

Regards,
IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Hearsay is quite easy to understand actually.

That is why we have LEGAL DICTIONARIES.

A bit like someone using WW2 for dummies and being able to discuss with the depth and understanding you appear to possess for the subject.

Let's use this nice mickey mouse site for the general rule

quote:


http://oasis.gov.ie/justice/evidence/hearsay_evidence.html
A statement made out of court cannot be introduced in court to prove the content of the statement. For example, if you are a witness in a trial, you cannot give the following evidence "My mother told me she saw the accused at 3pm". This is evidence of a statement made out of court and it is "hearsay". For that evidence to be introduced, your mother must take the stand and describe what she herself saw

That should do. Now, "acting on Hitlers orders" does not equal "I heard Hitler order me to..."

Now forgive me if there is something else you're basing your assumption on, but unless he's testifying that Hitler himself personally ordered him to carry out these orders, then this is classic hearsay. At no point during the thread though have I seen that used, althouth given the vebose nature of it, it's entirely possible I missed that quote.

Dinsdale, with all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

I am trying to be kind. But if this is the level of understanding about Dietrich's case, then no wonder we go around in circles. . .

The statement you gave above is HEARSAY.

Let me go through this again:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Dietrich PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him the order. Dietrich did not hear about Hitler's order from anyone else. Dietrich heard it directly from Hitler.

Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

What Dietrich gave in court is personal DIRECT TESTIMONY.

It is NOT hearsay.

In the books I have read on Dietrich's trial NEVER has the issue of his testimony being hearsay EVER been raised in over 50 years by ANY lawyers. Why? Because they know better.

Only you and GuitarJames have ever called Dietrich's direct testimony, hearsay.

You are digging a hole for yourself, although I'm not sure why I'm letting you in on this.

quote:

Let me go through this again:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Dietrich PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him the order. Dietrich did not hear about Hitler's order from anyone else. Dietrich heard it directly from Hitler.

Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

What Dietrich gave in court is personal DIRECT TESTIMONY.

Dietrich rescinded all his testimony at the Malmedy trial, claiming it had been extracted under duress. We know all the statements were dictated by the interrogators, and merely signed by the defendants. He wasn't alone. Whether heresay or not, given what we know of the circumstances of the arrest and interrogation, no court in the world (I take that back) no court in the democratic world would accept it as evidence today.

Ironduke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Ah, you've read books on Dietrich's trial, what exactly did he say?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Von Rom
Few historians even mention the fact that Patton was even in Austria on May 7, 1945. D'Este leaves us with the false impression that Patton remained in Regensburg the whole time.

I think you have read too much Farago. You seem to read conspiracy into every turn. Patton (by your account) went on a jaunt to Austria with a visiting politician. Why would D'Este (or any other Historian) feel it had to be mentioned? He mentions that Patton met the Under Secretary at this time, why read anything into the fact he couldn't be bothered mentioning where? It is only important now because you're trying to prove Patton woke up (or was in Austrian airspace) in Austria when Dietrich surrendered. I can't believe D'Este omitted the fact the visit was in Austria in anticipation of taking my side in this argument.

quote:

Von Rom
If you will recall, this entire discussion started when Ironduke brought up Dietrich's surrender to Patton and he mentioned that Dietrich did not direct elements of the 6th SS panzer Army to surrender.

I am right. You just do not know enough of the circumstances of the surrender of 1st SS Panzer Corp et al to know this.
You seem to run two statements together.

quote:

Von Rom
I have also shown that Dietrich ORDERED several of his divisions west, where they surrendered to Third Army.

You make it sound as if Dietrich ordered his divisions westwards and ordered them to surrender. He did order them westwards, into concentration areas. The HJ and LSSAH were ordered (separately) to surrender at 6th SS Panzer Armee HQ by Dietrich's Deputy. Dietrich was not present. I believe he was then currently travelling to Zell am See where he arrived on 8th May to learn of the capitulation. In other words, some units of SS Panzer Armee were ordered to surrender before Dietrich even knew Germany had surrendered, because he was not at Sixth SS Panzer Armee HQ when the surrender was announced. This makes it difficult for him to order a surrender when he thought Germany was still fighting!
I have no doubt he was retreating westwards because he felt the end was near, but the demise of the SS Panzer Armee is not Dietrich's finest hour, as there are allegations he effectively disappeared for reasons of his own choosing to visit a theatre HQ to meet the Theatre Commander when his immediate Superior (Rendulic) was available. Rendulic gave the final order for the LSSAH to surrender (To the Russians, an order they disobeyed for obvious reasons).

Thus, Dietrich ordered his divisions west, but the actual surrender was ordered by other Officers.

IronDuke

Well, what can I say to the statements you make above

Now you're just arguning for the sake of argument.

Martin Blumeson edited Patton's papers and states it quite clearly that Patton was in Austria on May 7, 1945. Patterson, the Under Secretary, was with Patton.

The fact that D'Este does not mention Patton was in Austria tells me a lot about D'Este. Especially, when D'Este includes a large paragraph describing the love life of Patton's dog, Willie.

My rating of D'Este's book has gone from excellent to good, since I have found other omissions.

quote:

Well, what can I say to the statements you make above

Now you're just arguning for the sake of argument.

quote:

Martin Blumeson edited Patton's papers and states it quite clearly that Patton was in Austria on May 7, 1945. Patterson, the Under Secretary, was with Patton.

quote:

The fact that D'Este does not mention Patton was in Austria tells me a lot about D'Este. Especially, when D'Este includes a large paragraph describing the love life of Patton's dog, Willie.

My rating of D'Este's book has gone from excellent to good, since I have found other omissions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Ah, you've read books on Dietrich's trial, what exactly did he say?

Sorry Kevinugly.

But it seems that we are back to having 3-4 people that I have to respond to again.

I would like very much to have a reasonable discussion on this subject with you. But I think that what I have been reading here, any debate on the topic of Dietrich will be a mixture of fantasy and ill-conceived facts and twisted logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Dinsdale, with all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

Of course not, because no one who disagrees with you ever does

quote:


I am trying to be kind. But if this is the level of understanding about Dietrich's case, then no wonder we go around in circles. . .

No you're not, you've nailed your colours to the mast and are too proud to back down regardless of reality.

quote:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Cite please.

quote:


Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

cite please

quote:

books I have read on Dietrich's trial NEVER has the issue of his testimony being hearsay EVER been raised in over 50 years by ANY lawyers. Why? Because they know better.

As stated, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. That's probably too subtle for you though.

Citation of the transcript that Hitler personally ordered Dietrich would be nice, what would be nicer is if you had provided it before, or mentioned where it had been stated as I requested in my previous post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Hearsay is quite easy to understand actually.

That is why we have LEGAL DICTIONARIES.

A bit like someone using WW2 for dummies and being able to discuss with the depth and understanding you appear to possess for the subject.

Let's use this nice mickey mouse site for the general rule

quote:


http://oasis.gov.ie/justice/evidence/hearsay_evidence.html
A statement made out of court cannot be introduced in court to prove the content of the statement. For example, if you are a witness in a trial, you cannot give the following evidence "My mother told me she saw the accused at 3pm". This is evidence of a statement made out of court and it is "hearsay". For that evidence to be introduced, your mother must take the stand and describe what she herself saw

That should do. Now, "acting on Hitlers orders" does not equal "I heard Hitler order me to..."

Now forgive me if there is something else you're basing your assumption on, but unless he's testifying that Hitler himself personally ordered him to carry out these orders, then this is classic hearsay. At no point during the thread though have I seen that used, althouth given the vebose nature of it, it's entirely possible I missed that quote.

Dinsdale, with all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

I am trying to be kind. But if this is the level of understanding about Dietrich's case, then no wonder we go around in circles. . .

The statement you gave above is HEARSAY.

Let me go through this again:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Dietrich PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him the order. Dietrich did not hear about Hitler's order from anyone else. Dietrich heard it directly from Hitler.

Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

What Dietrich gave in court is personal DIRECT TESTIMONY.

It is NOT hearsay.

In the books I have read on Dietrich's trial NEVER has the issue of his testimony being hearsay EVER been raised in over 50 years by ANY lawyers. Why? Because they know better.

Only you and GuitarJames have ever called Dietrich's direct testimony, hearsay.

You are digging a hole for yourself, although I'm not sure why I'm letting you in on this.

quote:

Let me go through this again:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Dietrich PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him the order. Dietrich did not hear about Hitler's order from anyone else. Dietrich heard it directly from Hitler.

Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

What Dietrich gave in court is personal DIRECT TESTIMONY.

Dietrich rescinded all his testimony at the Malmedy trial, claiming it had been extracted under duress. We know all the statements were dictated by the interrogators, and merely signed by the defendants. He wasn't alone. Whether heresay or not, given what we know of the circumstances of the arrest and interrogation, no court in the world (I take that back) no court in the democratic world would accept it as evidence today.

Ironduke

Show one source claiming that Dietrich's testimony was hearsay.

quote:

Von Rom
Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Oh, brother

The exceptions to the hearsay rule apply in cases OTHER than DIRECT PERSONAL TESTIMONY.

quote:

Why do you continue to dig a hole that goes nowhere?

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Von Rom
Few historians even mention the fact that Patton was even in Austria on May 7, 1945. D'Este leaves us with the false impression that Patton remained in Regensburg the whole time.

I think you have read too much Farago. You seem to read conspiracy into every turn. Patton (by your account) went on a jaunt to Austria with a visiting politician. Why would D'Este (or any other Historian) feel it had to be mentioned? He mentions that Patton met the Under Secretary at this time, why read anything into the fact he couldn't be bothered mentioning where? It is only important now because you're trying to prove Patton woke up (or was in Austrian airspace) in Austria when Dietrich surrendered. I can't believe D'Este omitted the fact the visit was in Austria in anticipation of taking my side in this argument.

quote:

Von Rom
If you will recall, this entire discussion started when Ironduke brought up Dietrich's surrender to Patton and he mentioned that Dietrich did not direct elements of the 6th SS panzer Army to surrender.

I am right. You just do not know enough of the circumstances of the surrender of 1st SS Panzer Corp et al to know this.
You seem to run two statements together.

quote:

Von Rom
I have also shown that Dietrich ORDERED several of his divisions west, where they surrendered to Third Army.

You make it sound as if Dietrich ordered his divisions westwards and ordered them to surrender. He did order them westwards, into concentration areas. The HJ and LSSAH were ordered (separately) to surrender at 6th SS Panzer Armee HQ by Dietrich's Deputy. Dietrich was not present. I believe he was then currently travelling to Zell am See where he arrived on 8th May to learn of the capitulation. In other words, some units of SS Panzer Armee were ordered to surrender before Dietrich even knew Germany had surrendered, because he was not at Sixth SS Panzer Armee HQ when the surrender was announced. This makes it difficult for him to order a surrender when he thought Germany was still fighting!
I have no doubt he was retreating westwards because he felt the end was near, but the demise of the SS Panzer Armee is not Dietrich's finest hour, as there are allegations he effectively disappeared for reasons of his own choosing to visit a theatre HQ to meet the Theatre Commander when his immediate Superior (Rendulic) was available. Rendulic gave the final order for the LSSAH to surrender (To the Russians, an order they disobeyed for obvious reasons).

Thus, Dietrich ordered his divisions west, but the actual surrender was ordered by other Officers.

IronDuke

Well, what can I say to the statements you make above

Now you're just arguning for the sake of argument.

Martin Blumeson edited Patton's papers and states it quite clearly that Patton was in Austria on May 7, 1945. Patterson, the Under Secretary, was with Patton.

The fact that D'Este does not mention Patton was in Austria tells me a lot about D'Este. Especially, when D'Este includes a large paragraph describing the love life of Patton's dog, Willie.

My rating of D'Este's book has gone from excellent to good, since I have found other omissions.

quote:

Well, what can I say to the statements you make above

Now you're just arguning for the sake of argument.

This tells me you're lost, it makes no sense, dodges the issue and is just designed to make it look as if you are exasperated rather than lost.

quote:

Martin Blumeson edited Patton's papers and states it quite clearly that Patton was in Austria on May 7, 1945. Patterson, the Under Secretary, was with Patton.

Why you said this I don't know, I wasn't questioning it, so I'm guessing its a straw man.

quote:

The fact that D'Este does not mention Patton was in Austria tells me a lot about D'Este. Especially, when D'Este includes a large paragraph describing the love life of Patton's dog, Willie.

My rating of D'Este's book has gone from excellent to good, since I have found other omissions.

So you keep saying (although not demonstrating). What I believe, is that when I started to point out Patton's problems, using the D'Este book you were initially so fond of, you went right off it and latched onto Farago instead because it was more Patton complimentary. This is fine, but it does leave me at a temporary disadvantage because I haven't read this Jounalist's work yet. I'm sure I will at some point, and then maybe we can return to this issue...

IronDuke

quote:


I have looked at Reynolds book.

If this is what you are using as a reference, then no wonder, you are making such statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I've been trying to find Dietrich's statement that he allegedly made under oath. MacDonald doesn't mention it at all, the 'Jewish Library' link that I gave above only mentions that the US prosecuters tried to make use of it during the trial of Peiper & co. at Dachau and failed. Cole makes a meal of it in his 'Official History' but doesn't quote verbatim. I'm starting to wonder whether Dietrich ever said anything about the 'Terror' order whilst under oath since there surely would be a written record of it - it's one of the big war trials from the perspective of the American military after all.

It's interesting how some historians can be so clueless on certain issues.

It can indeed be difficult trying to track down facts on certain subjects.

Perhaps a new thread on this subject might be helpful.

Why? I've brought this back to a thread on Dietrich and this statement he allegedly made seems to be key to this discussion. If you've read books on his trial then surely you must know what is words actually were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Ah, you've read books on Dietrich's trial, what exactly did he say?

Sorry Kevinugly.

But it seems that we are back to having 3-4 people that I have to respond to again.

I would like very much to have a reasonable discussion on this subject with you. But I think that what I have been reading here, any debate on the topic of Dietrich will be a mixture of fantasy and ill-conceived facts and twisted logic.

But this is key, it seems that myself, Iron Duke and Dinsdale are all after the same thing, i.e. Dietrich's testimony. Supply us with a source for his full statement and the 'air can be cleared' so to speak. Since you have read books on his trial you must be able to provide us with something

quote:

What I wrote above means is, that you simply have nothing concrete to say, and you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

If it continues I will simply ignore your posts as I have done in the past.

quote:

Von Rom
Unfortunately, at the moment I think with some of the questionable statements being made, that it will be difficult to have a sane discussion about Dietrich.

I mean, people can't even distinquish between direct testimony and hearsay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Hearsay is quite easy to understand actually.

That is why we have LEGAL DICTIONARIES.

A bit like someone using WW2 for dummies and being able to discuss with the depth and understanding you appear to possess for the subject.

Let's use this nice mickey mouse site for the general rule

quote:


http://oasis.gov.ie/justice/evidence/hearsay_evidence.html
A statement made out of court cannot be introduced in court to prove the content of the statement. For example, if you are a witness in a trial, you cannot give the following evidence "My mother told me she saw the accused at 3pm". This is evidence of a statement made out of court and it is "hearsay". For that evidence to be introduced, your mother must take the stand and describe what she herself saw

That should do. Now, "acting on Hitlers orders" does not equal "I heard Hitler order me to..."

Now forgive me if there is something else you're basing your assumption on, but unless he's testifying that Hitler himself personally ordered him to carry out these orders, then this is classic hearsay. At no point during the thread though have I seen that used, althouth given the vebose nature of it, it's entirely possible I missed that quote.

Dinsdale, with all due respect, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

I am trying to be kind. But if this is the level of understanding about Dietrich's case, then no wonder we go around in circles. . .

The statement you gave above is HEARSAY.

Let me go through this again:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Dietrich PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him the order. Dietrich did not hear about Hitler's order from anyone else. Dietrich heard it directly from Hitler.

Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

What Dietrich gave in court is personal DIRECT TESTIMONY.

It is NOT hearsay.

In the books I have read on Dietrich's trial NEVER has the issue of his testimony being hearsay EVER been raised in over 50 years by ANY lawyers. Why? Because they know better.

Only you and GuitarJames have ever called Dietrich's direct testimony, hearsay.

You are digging a hole for yourself, although I'm not sure why I'm letting you in on this.

quote:

Let me go through this again:

Hitler called a conference.

Dietrich was PERSONALLY at this conference.

Dietrich swore under oath that HE PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him and the other oficers present, the "wave of terror order".

Did you get that?

Dietrich PERSONALLY heard Hitler give him the order. Dietrich did not hear about Hitler's order from anyone else. Dietrich heard it directly from Hitler.

Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

What Dietrich gave in court is personal DIRECT TESTIMONY.

Dietrich rescinded all his testimony at the Malmedy trial, claiming it had been extracted under duress. We know all the statements were dictated by the interrogators, and merely signed by the defendants. He wasn't alone. Whether heresay or not, given what we know of the circumstances of the arrest and interrogation, no court in the world (I take that back) no court in the democratic world would accept it as evidence today.

Ironduke

Show one source claiming that Dietrich's testimony was hearsay.

I wasn't attempting to demonstrate it was heresay, merely that it wasn't anything, because he told the court at the trial it was extracted under duress and he was retracting it. I was pointing out that the statement

quote:

Von Rom
Dietrich swore under oath, and signed a statement, saying that he PERSONALLY received the order from Hitler.

was not true, because he rescinded the statement. This statement was only true for the period between his interrogation and the trial. You did not seem to be aware of this, as you never mentioned it. I was trying to help .

Ironduke