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."

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Hersay or not, since Dietrich retracted the statement during trial, one cannot assume it as fact. While it may be plausible that Hitler would issue such a crazy order, it is more plausible that these written, sworn testimonoes was produced under stress. I think you are right vonRom that semantics and details are important, and should be discussed. That is why I think IronDuke does right in challenging your statement of Dietrich surrendering to Patton (which you said was just unnessessary hassel :))
VonRom, I believe you said Patton became a 4 star general at the time (prior) to Dietrich surrender. In your avatar (I assume its Pattons helmet and guns), I see only 3. I assume this picture was taken after the war. What happened?


JT

quote:

Hersay or not, since Dietrich retracted the statement during trial, one cannot assume it as fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Hersay or not, since Dietrich retracted the statement during trial, one cannot assume it as fact. While it may be plausible that Hitler would issue such a crazy order, it is more plausible that these written, sworn testimonoes was produced under stress. I think you are right vonRom that semantics and details are important, and should be discussed. That is why I think IronDuke does right in challenging your statement of Dietrich surrendering to Patton (which you said was just unnessessary hassel :))
VonRom, I believe you said Patton became a 4 star general at the time (prior) to Dietrich surrender. In your avatar (I assume its Pattons helmet and guns), I see only 3. I assume this picture was taken after the war. What happened?


JT

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

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.

Von Rom,
It is one thing to say this, but another to prove it. You can continue to slander Professor D'este's work, (in order to push the claims of a journalist), but without evidence or your critique of his book, the fact it has fallen several notches in your estimation actually convinces me of it's merit.

Otherwise, all you're giving us is heresay. Claims without evidence is not history, either.

IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

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. . .

With respect, I don't believe you for a second. You said you had had a look at his book, not read, not studied, just looked. Did the dust jacket or cover put you off? This hardly seems a reason for me to distrust this man. Usually when someone says something like this, they give reasons. When I tell you I dislike a website you have quoted, I tell you why (even though pointing out numerous factual errors attracts the charge of nitpicking ala the Rinamann thing a page or two back).

With respect, I think this statement is a debating tactic. You are attempting to discredit an opponent's argument by discrediting their evidence. Unable to discredit it (because you haven't read it), you instead make unsubstantiated statements without producing a shred of evidence or even a reason.

quote:

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

As a debating tactic, such tactics help you because people might get the impression you actually have discovered something wrong with it, and it is discredited as a result. It also helps you because you get to discredit it without offering proof.

Now I'm sure I'll get a response like "If you don't know what's wrong with it, then...." or "it's not my job to study your sources for you" or "just look what this thread has come to" but I'll ask anyway.

Which book are you referring to (or have you glanced at them all?)

What is wrong with it?

What examples can you offer to prove this.

IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

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."

You beat me to it, I noticed he had used it as evidence as well not knowing it had been withdrawn in court. I get the next one, right? [;)]

quote:

Quite franly, you can believe whatever you want about D'Este's work.

Second, it is not slander. It is my estimation of his work, after reading 5 books on Patton, including Blumenson's mamoth two volume work: "The Patton Papers".

But you believe what you want - whether it's true or not. You seem to be much happier that way.

quote:


Frankly, I could care less.

The logic displayed in this thread over the past three pages is farcical.

The real pity in it all is that you fellas collectively actually believe in what you write

Now I know why Whiting has become popular, and why you guys believe some of the nonsense you do.

I will leave this thread to you few bunch of people, who think looking at one's avatar indicates something that actually happened historically.

Have fun telling each other what you want to believe - LOL

Good-bye

quote:

Now I know why Whiting has become popular, and why you guys believe some of the nonsense you do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Quite franly, you can believe whatever you want about D'Este's work.

Second, it is not slander. It is my estimation of his work, after reading 5 books on Patton, including Blumenson's mamoth two volume work: "The Patton Papers".

But you believe what you want - whether it's true or not. You seem to be much happier that way.

Fair enough, although for the record I believe you have avoided my request using what I classified as the "What has this thread come to" approach, with just a touch of "do your own research" thrown in when you said you'd read 5 books (suggesting by inference the rest of us had done little research). With respect, I think you also missed an adjective. The word "secret" should have been inserted inbetween "My" and "estimation".

quote:


Frankly, I could care less.

The logic displayed in this thread over the past three pages is farcical.

The real pity in it all is that you fellas collectively actually believe in what you write

Now I know why Whiting has become popular, and why you guys believe some of the nonsense you do.

I will leave this thread to you few bunch of people, who think looking at one's avatar indicates something that actually happened historically.

Have fun telling each other what you want to believe - LOL

Good-bye

This request re Reynolds is most definately avoided with the "Look what this thread has come to" approach. There is however, something new.

quote:

Now I know why Whiting has become popular, and why you guys believe some of the nonsense you do.

I did not anticipate the straw man. My apologies for this lack of foresight. Just for the record, then, you refuse to tell us why D'Este's work is wrong, and you refuse to so much as name the Reynolds book you read, never mind tell us why it is wrong. Fair enough, just wanted to get things straight.

I think it is a shame you are unable/unwilling to answer these requests, because they would have focused on concrete issues you had raised (about the reliability of these two sources) and given you an opportunity to convince us of what you perceive to be their problems. This would have taken the thread in a more positive direction by moving us away from the arguments of the last couple of pages. It would also have given you chance to correct some of the errors in (for example) D'Este's work, thus cutting the ground from some of my criticisms of Patton which used D'Este as evidence. In the absence of your critique of both these works, I must regrettably stand by my criticisms.

Till the next time.....

IronDuke

quote:

Kev:

That example I used was just an initial example.

Here I actually thought you wanted a reasonable discussion. I guess you showed your true colours and intent, eh?

ID:

Deep, thorough analysis as usual.

Whatever happened to you claiming all those websites were wrong about 6th SS Panzer surrendering to Third Army?

As you can see from my previous proof, YOU were WRONG, and those websites were RIGHT.

The logic displayed by several people in the last three pages of this thread is just about as bad as it can possibly be.

quote:

LOL

Please spare me. . .

The personal attacks upon me by you and the spurious logic you have displayed in the last several pages has ended ANY discussion I care to have with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

VR, I would like a reasonable discussion based on corroborated evidence. Quite what you mean by 'I guess you showed your true colours and intent' I'm really not sure[&:] Dietrich's 'testimony' is a major bone of contention a) since there is some doubt that it ever existed and b) if it did, then Dietrich withdrew it (incidentally I haven't seen a reference that specifically refers to Dietrich in this matter, only that 'confessions' extracted by dubious methods prior to the Dachau trial were withdrawn). Since you said that you had read books on the Dietrich trial I presume you must be able to provide corroborating evidence as to the content of the testimony and from there whether Hitler actually issued the 'Terror' order you mentioned on the first page of the thread. Do that and your contested post on page one will be validated and we can move on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Kev:

That example I used was just an initial example.

Here I actually thought you wanted a reasonable discussion. I guess you showed your true colours and intent, eh?

ID:

Deep, thorough analysis as usual.

Whatever happened to you claiming all those websites were wrong about 6th SS Panzer surrendering to Third Army?

As you can see from my previous proof, YOU were WRONG, and those websites were RIGHT.

The logic displayed by several people in the last three pages of this thread is just about as bad as it can possibly be.

I must correct you here, Von Rom. I never denied most of 6th SS Panzer Armee surrendered to 3rd Army, to suggest this is a straw man. I merely pointed out that Dietrich did not order them to surrender, because they had begun to surrender before he even knew the war was over.

If you can find a quote in this thread to the contrary, please reprint it and prove me wrong. (I sense this is another challenge). However, it's not an important one so avoid it as you see fit.

For the record, I think you have also so far ignored my request for a quote from Farago concerning where the Patton/Undersecretary evening of 7th May was located. You merely stated it was in Austria, not demonstrated it with a quote. I don't expect a reply, but when I read Farago, I will of course report back here if I find anything different that you have left out.

IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

LOL

Please spare me. . .

The personal attacks upon me by you and the spurious logic you have displayed in the last several pages has ended ANY discussion I care to have with you.

I will never spare you searching questions about the things you say, because I do not believe you have the evidence to back them up, as evidenced by your continuing refusal to give it to us. If you wish to avoid the searching questions, it would be advisable to stop posting or provide the evidence like everyone else has to.

IronPyschic hereby predicts that you will reply, thus invalidating your statement above about not caring to have a discussion......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Kev:

Ya got a lot of nerve requesting to have a "reasonable" discussion with me.

Any chance of that happening ended a couple of pages ago in this thread, when you and several others engaged in nothing less than the most illogical series of posts I have seen in some time, not to mention the personal attacks upon me.

My opinion of several of you has fallen several notches.

So please have this "reasonable discussion" with a few of the others here, and where you can all pat yourselves on the back for believing in the same nonsense and in turning logic on its head.

Good-bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

LOL

Please spare me. . .

The personal attacks upon me by you and the spurious logic you have displayed in the last several pages has ended ANY discussion I care to have with you.

I will never spare you searching questions about the things you say, because I do not believe you have the evidence to back them up, as evidenced by your continuing refusal to give it to us. If you wish to avoid the searching questions, it would be advisable to stop posting or provide the evidence like everyone else has to.

IronPyschic hereby predicts that you will reply, thus invalidating your statement above about not caring to have a discussion......

Nope.

End of discussion.

This is my LAST post in this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Should we broaden the discussion to look at the Waffen SS in general and the subject of war crimes? I often wonder whether the mystique about them and their combat proficiency sometimes blinds us to what they were really like. Men like Meyer and Peiper and Hausser etc. Many of the senior Officers in their thirtes during the war were in the SS from the early 1930s, several of them from Hitler's personal bodyguard.

Sydnor's book on the SS-T was particularly interesting in this regard. He showed how several SS divisions swapped drafts of men between units, and how SS-T in particular was made up of concentration guards. Not just the initial draft, but replacements during the war could be drafted from the Guard battalions and wounded SS-T men on convalescense could spend time on light duties guarding camps. Some SS-T men became Commanders and Officers in other SS formations.

So, the question is. How much truth is there in the common Waffen SS image of elite soldiers detached from the excesses of the Third Reich (although committed NAZIS). An image heavily promoted after the war by the Waffen SS veterans themselves?

Regards,
IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Hersay or not, since Dietrich retracted the statement during trial, one cannot assume it as fact. While it may be plausible that Hitler would issue such a crazy order, it is more plausible that these written, sworn testimonoes was produced under stress. I think you are right vonRom that semantics and details are important, and should be discussed. That is why I think IronDuke does right in challenging your statement of Dietrich surrendering to Patton (which you said was just unnessessary hassel :))
VonRom, I believe you said Patton became a 4 star general at the time (prior) to Dietrich surrender. In your avatar (I assume its Pattons helmet and guns), I see only 3. I assume this picture was taken after the war. What happened?


JT

quote:

Hersay or not, since Dietrich retracted the statement during trial, one cannot assume it as fact.

This is an example of the type of reasoning of why I will not discuss the Dietrich trial.

You are claiming that because Dietrich retracted his sworn testimoiny, that it is no longer fact.

Think about what you are saying.

You have just turned logic and jurisprudence on its head.

A murderer makes a written confession, and then swears under oath it is true. He has confessed to murdering dozens of people.

Then weeks later, after he has thought it over, talked to others and his lawyers, he then decides he will retact that confession.

That murderer can do whatever he wants.

But retracting it:

a) Does not make the murderer innnocent

b) It does NOT change the facts of the case

c) It does not mean he did not murder all those people

d) It Does not make his initial confession any less relevant or hearsay

You really need to do some reading up on what constitutes evidence, hearsay, and testimony.

As to my avatar: So what?