quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Well for the purposes of this discussion Dietrich's statement is hearsay since nobody seems to know what it actually was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Oh, brother [8|]

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

Except that the question is what Dietrich's testimony actually was. That question appears to be beyond you.

quote:

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

In your arrogance and rudeness you are ignoring the question which has lingered now for several posts. Where is Dietrich's testimony as that's the issue here.

What exactly did Dietrich say, is that too complicated for you to follow?

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Now you have my attention.

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.

You make a habit of these sort of statements, I think it's a debating tactic designed to make people think something is clearly wrong with something, but put in such a way you don't have to prove it.

Firstly, which of Mr Reynold's books are you referring to? If you have read it, you presumably can tell me the title. (If you can't, a quick scan of Amazon should give you a title to give me).

Secondly, what did you think was wrong with it? I'm guessing you noticed factual errors, could you name them? I'd happily accept just one example off the top of your head at this stage.

Thirdly, what did the reviews at Amazon tell you about this book? I know you've used Amazon reviews for Farago and D'Este et al. What do they say about Reynolds?

Ironduke

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

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.

But I do have something concrete to say, I was asking for your critique of D'Este. You have posted many reviews revealing this to be a well respected work in the past, and if you now think it flawed, (and you keep saying it is) do you not owe it to this forum to explain why, after your previous comments recommended it. Some of the Forum readers may be planning to read this after the recent Patton threads and should be forewarned of any innaccuracies, errors of interpretation etc.

IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I think we can have a perfectly sane discussion about Dietrich if we know more or less exactly what he did or didn't say. At the moment all we have is conjecture (better than 'hearsay' I feel[:)]) as to a sworn statement (contents unclear) that appears to have been later withdrawn as it was apparently made whilst under duress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
No, you could not distinquish between direct testimony and hearsay.

Dietrich's initial sworn testimony was NOT hearsay.

You are changing your line of debate, dropping what you think hearsay meant as it applied to Dietrich, and now you are echoing the other voices here, claiming that you only want to see Dietrich's statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

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.

But it isn't direct testimony, because he rescinded it. It it was direct testimony, he would have testified at his trial to it's veracity. Instead, at his trial, he said "Sorry, they got all that out of me under duress, and I made it up". How is this direct testimony?

IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I suppose it's easier than discussing the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
No, you could not distinquish between direct testimony and hearsay.

Dietrich's initial sworn testimony was NOT hearsay.

You are changing your line of debate, dropping what you think hearsay meant as it applied to Dietrich, and now you are echoing the other voices here, claiming that you only want to see Dietrich's statements.

No possibly not, however when you claimed that stated to be following "hitlers orders" then that is prima facie hearsay as there's no mention of the fact that he claimed to be directly ordered by Hitler. This has been the line I have attempted to follow for this entire waste of time while you continue to butcher terms of which you have little comprehension.

There are exceptions to the rule which may have allowed it into court, that does not mean that it's not hearsay, but hearsay with exception. I predicted about 3 posts before that this would be too subtle for you, and that is indeed the case.

Now, if you have anything other than he claimed to be working under Hitler's orders I will of course accept that it was testimony, but you didn't make the claim earlier in the thread, and now make the claim without any evidence for it.

If you have anything new, other than parrot-style "it's not hearsay, you're all stupid" posts then that would be great, but I fear that you'll simply ignore and move on to something irrelevant and use that as "proof" that this testimony was not hearsay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I think you've entirely missed the point Von Rom. I also think that you haven't actually read any books about the Dietrich trial and don't know what his testimony was if it was ever made (which makes it hearsay incidentally). So you are using the 'hearsay' issue as a smokescreen to cover your lack of knowledge. If you can return with a full transcript of the document in question I will, of course, be happy to retract[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I think you've entirely missed the point Von Rom. I also think that you haven't actually read any books about the Dietrich trial and don't know what his testimony was if it was ever made (which makes it hearsay incidentally). So you are using the 'hearsay' issue as a smokescreen to cover your lack of knowledge. If you can return with a full transcript of the document in question I will, of course, be happy to retract[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Dinsdale:

I don't know how many times I can say this:

Dietrich swore UNDER OATH that he was present with Hitler, and heard with his OWN ears Hitler telling him DIRECTLY about the "wave of terror" order.

This is DIRECT TESTIMONY. It is allowed in court.

This is the last time that I will respond to one your posts on this issue.

You simply cannot grasp what hearsay means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well you boys go right ahead and mumble amongst yourselves; come up with your own ideas about what consititutes Hearsay; and make farcical statements about what should or should be seen by you in this forum at this instant.

I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. [8|]

kinda like a game of "Pick-a-boo" I used to play with my Godson when he was a baby. . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well you boys go right ahead and mumble amongst yourselves; come up with your own ideas about what consititutes Hearsay; and make farcical statements about what should or should be seen by you in this forum at this instant.

I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. [8|]

kinda like a game of "Pick-a-boo" I used to play with my Godson when he was a baby. . .

[&:]

I've seen some bizarre posts in my time but this is truly weird. I use a dictionary definition of hearsay and this is the reply I get. Gheeesh[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well you boys go right ahead and mumble amongst yourselves; come up with your own ideas about what consititutes Hearsay; and make farcical statements about what should or should be seen by you in this forum at this instant.

I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. [8|]

kinda like a game of "Pick-a-boo" I used to play with my Godson when he was a baby. . .

[&:]

I've seen some bizarre posts in my time but this is truly weird. I use a dictionary definition of hearsay and this is the reply I get. Gheeesh[8|]

Sorry Kevin:

That post was not directed at you.

This thread has come to a screeching halt through a blather of meaningless posts.

I thought we could have had a meaningful discussion.

But I doubt that will happen.

I also suspect that this thread will be closed down very soon, since certain arguments and conclusions are not to certain peoples' liking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

"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."

Since you've read so many books, you must know what was in his testimony...... or were you trolling when you wrote this (I'm being polite btw[;)])

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well you boys go right ahead and mumble amongst yourselves; come up with your own ideas about what consititutes Hearsay; and make farcical statements about what should or should be seen by you in this forum at this instant.

I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. [8|]

kinda like a game of "Pick-a-boo" I used to play with my Godson when he was a baby. . .

[&:]

I've seen some bizarre posts in my time but this is truly weird. I use a dictionary definition of hearsay and this is the reply I get. Gheeesh[8|]

Sorry Kevin:

That post was not directed at you.

This thread has come to a screeching halt through a blather of meaningless posts.

I thought we could have had a meaningful discussion.

But I doubt that will happen.

I also suspect that this thread will be closed down very soon, since certain arguments and conclusions are not to certain peoples' liking.

If certain parties had not become obsessed with semantics then maybe that would be possible. However, without any extra information coming to light regarding the Dietrich testimony then I suspect you're right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Have a good meal[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
That post was not directed at you.

This thread has come to a screeching halt through a blather of meaningless posts.

I thought we could have had a meaningful discussion.

But I doubt that will happen.

I also suspect that this thread will be closed down very soon, since certain arguments and conclusions are not to certain peoples' liking.

quote:

In the Battle of the Bulge there were planned atrocities.

The worst one was the murder of eighty-six POWs of the 7th Armored Div. on Dec. 17th near Malmedy. Hitler had ordered "a wave of terror and fright and that no human inhibitions should be shown."

Elements of Lt. Col. Jocahim Peiper's SS command had committed the "Malmedy Massacre." In the first four days of the battle, Peiper's men murdered approximately 350 American POWs and 100 unarmed Belgian civilians. Word of this activity spread surprisingly fast among American troops.


The Following Information is from the US Army Official History of the Battle of the Bulge:



It was between noon and one o'clock of 17 December, on the road between Modersheid and Ligneuville, that the German advance guard ran into an American truck convoy moving south from Malmedy. This was ill-fated Battery B of the 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion. The convoy was shot up and the advance guard rolled on, leaving the troops to the rear to deal with the Americans who had taken to the woods and ditches. About two hours after, or so the dazed survivors later recalled, the Americans who had been rounded up were marched into a field where, at a signal, they were shot down by machine gun and pistol fire. A few escaped by feigning death, but the wounded who moved or screamed were sought out and shot through the head. At least eighty-six Americans were massacred here. This was not the first killing of unarmed prisoners chargeable to Kampfgruppe Peiper on 17 December. Irrefutable evidence shows that nineteen unarmed Americans were shot down at Honsfeld and fifty at Bullingen. [3]

The Malmedy massacre would have repercussions reaching far wider than one might expect of a single battlefield atrocity in a long and bitter war. This "incident" undoubtedly stiffened the will of the American combatants (although a quantitative assessment of this fact is impossible); it would be featured in the war crimes trials as an outstanding example of Nazi contempt for the accepted rules of war; and it would serve a United States Senator as a stepping-stone toward a meteoric career. But the Malmedy massacre and the other murders of 17 December did not complete the list chargeable to Peiper and the troops of the 1st SS Panzer Division. By 20 December Peiper's command had murdered approximately 350 American prisoners of war and at least 100 unarmed Belgian civilians, this total derived from killings at twelve different locations along Peiper's line of march.

So far as can be determined the Peiper killings represent the only organized and directed murder of prisoners of war by either side during the Ardennes battle. [4] The commander of the Sixth SS Panzer Army [Sepp Dietrich] took oath in the trials of 1946 that, acting on Hitler's orders, he issued a directive stating that the German troops should be preceded "by a wave of terror and fright and that no human inhibitions should be shown."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

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.

But I do have something concrete to say, I was asking for your critique of D'Este. You have posted many reviews revealing this to be a well respected work in the past, and if you now think it flawed, (and you keep saying it is) do you not owe it to this forum to explain why, after your previous comments recommended it. Some of the Forum readers may be planning to read this after the recent Patton threads and should be forewarned of any innaccuracies, errors of interpretation etc.

IronDuke

You see Ironduke, that's why you should read more than just ONE book about Patton.

Believe me, my estimation about D'Este's book has fallen several notches.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
That post was not directed at you.

This thread has come to a screeching halt through a blather of meaningless posts.

I thought we could have had a meaningful discussion.

But I doubt that will happen.

I also suspect that this thread will be closed down very soon, since certain arguments and conclusions are not to certain peoples' liking.

Yes, simply because you were challenged and unable to do anything but bandy insults around. Funny, I seem to recall a similar occurence in that 20 page thread a little while ago, of course it was others who derailed that thread too [8|]

Victim complex?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Now you have my attention.

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.

You make a habit of these sort of statements, I think it's a debating tactic designed to make people think something is clearly wrong with something, but put in such a way you don't have to prove it.

Firstly, which of Mr Reynold's books are you referring to? If you have read it, you presumably can tell me the title. (If you can't, a quick scan of Amazon should give you a title to give me).

Secondly, what did you think was wrong with it? I'm guessing you noticed factual errors, could you name them? I'd happily accept just one example off the top of your head at this stage.

Thirdly, what did the reviews at Amazon tell you about this book? I know you've used Amazon reviews for Farago and D'Este et al. What do they say about Reynolds?

Ironduke

There is something wrong, believe me. . .

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Well, one does what one can but I can find no evidence of Dietrichs 'testimony' regarding Hitler's 'Terror' order. It's absence leads me to the conclusion that if it existed it was a fabrication produced in the 'mock trials' that occured at Dachau prior to the real trials of Dietrich, Peiper and the other SS men accused over the Malmedy/Baugnez massacre. I do wonder what books Von Rom has read on the trial of Dietrich (since he used the plural I presume there's more than one[:)]) since he doesn't produce quotes. I suppose he may be partially right about Dietrich's supposed testimony - it's not 'hearsay' evidence, it's no evidence whatsoever! It makes the following snip from a Von Rom post on page 1 of this thread highly suspect.

quote:

In the Battle of the Bulge there were planned atrocities.

The worst one was the murder of eighty-six POWs of the 7th Armored Div. on Dec. 17th near Malmedy. Hitler had ordered "a wave of terror and fright and that no human inhibitions should be shown."

Elements of Lt. Col. Jocahim Peiper's SS command had committed the "Malmedy Massacre." In the first four days of the battle, Peiper's men murdered approximately 350 American POWs and 100 unarmed Belgian civilians. Word of this activity spread surprisingly fast among American troops.


The Following Information is from the US Army Official History of the Battle of the Bulge:



It was between noon and one o'clock of 17 December, on the road between Modersheid and Ligneuville, that the German advance guard ran into an American truck convoy moving south from Malmedy. This was ill-fated Battery B of the 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion. The convoy was shot up and the advance guard rolled on, leaving the troops to the rear to deal with the Americans who had taken to the woods and ditches. About two hours after, or so the dazed survivors later recalled, the Americans who had been rounded up were marched into a field where, at a signal, they were shot down by machine gun and pistol fire. A few escaped by feigning death, but the wounded who moved or screamed were sought out and shot through the head. At least eighty-six Americans were massacred here. This was not the first killing of unarmed prisoners chargeable to Kampfgruppe Peiper on 17 December. Irrefutable evidence shows that nineteen unarmed Americans were shot down at Honsfeld and fifty at Bullingen. [3]

The Malmedy massacre would have repercussions reaching far wider than one might expect of a single battlefield atrocity in a long and bitter war. This "incident" undoubtedly stiffened the will of the American combatants (although a quantitative assessment of this fact is impossible); it would be featured in the war crimes trials as an outstanding example of Nazi contempt for the accepted rules of war; and it would serve a United States Senator as a stepping-stone toward a meteoric career. But the Malmedy massacre and the other murders of 17 December did not complete the list chargeable to Peiper and the troops of the 1st SS Panzer Division. By 20 December Peiper's command had murdered approximately 350 American prisoners of war and at least 100 unarmed Belgian civilians, this total derived from killings at twelve different locations along Peiper's line of march.

So far as can be determined the Peiper killings represent the only organized and directed murder of prisoners of war by either side during the Ardennes battle. [4] The commander of the Sixth SS Panzer Army [Sepp Dietrich] took oath in the trials of 1946 that, acting on Hitler's orders, he issued a directive stating that the German troops should be preceded "by a wave of terror and fright and that no human inhibitions should be shown."