Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 3:03:30 AM   
Golf33

 

Posts: 1962
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Austria is in Europe and so was Eisenhower, so we could credit him if you will allow it.


Seems pretty reasonable, "troops under Eisenhower's command" should have included every Allied soldier in Europe if I am not mistaken .

As far as how the chain of command works, any senior officer present may have a degree of authority but is absolutely NOT automatically 'in command'. That would be the antithesis of the chain of command, which specifies that orders come from above, not from the side.

If General A starts giving direct orders to unit in General B's army, not only will General B be very annoyed, General A is likely to cop a kicking from their mutual boss.

Regards
33

_____________________________

Steve Golf33 Long

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 61
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 3:25:36 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Here is more Information regarding the 6th SS Panzer Army and Sepp Dietrich surrendering to Patton:


Encompass: A Journal of Military History
Vol. I No. 1
February 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Chronological Survey of the Waffen SS

By Will Rinaman




Excerpts:


January 1945 6th Panzer Army is renamed 6th SS Panzer Army and sent to Hungary to destroy the Russian bridgeheads over the River Gran.

February – April 1945 The attacks in Hungary fail and the 6th SS Panzer Army is redeployed southeast of Vienna. Neumann sees Dietrich's staff car pass his convoy in March on the way to Austria. Dietrich was forced to retreat into Vienna. This was his last battle. The Viking Division retreats into Austria on March 29.

April 12, 1945 Neumann is promoted to Hauptsturmfuhrer (Captain) while engaged in the losing defense of Vienna. That night he and a handful of other men slip out of the siege lines around the city.

April 22, 1945 Hitler accuses the 6th SS Panzer Army of lack of fighting spirit and orders the force to remove its distinctive sleeve-bands and freezes all promotions. Dietrich does not pass these orders on to his men. Guderian is ordered to deliver the instructions from Hitler personally, but he refuses. Neumann describes how the LAH reacted to Hitler's order: “The insult was violently resented by the whole of the LAH. They were thunderstruck at first by this totally undeserved reproach. Then astonishment gave way to indignation. Some of them tore off their decorations as well as their stripes and sent the lot addressed to the Chancellery in Berlin, in a latrine bucket. In it, too, they put an arm taken from a corpse. All this is worrying, and terribly indicative of the attitude which prevails in the SS at the time.”

May 8, 1945 6th SS Panzer Army surrenders to General George Patton.


http://amh.freehosting.net/waffen.html



I don't know where this comes from, but a few brief comments will suffice. The reason I like factual accuracy is because without it, you can prove anything. If someone's basic facts are wrong, then their interpretation must be suspect, and you begin to wonder at their reliability. At the risk of being accused of nitpicking again...

I don't know who this Neumann or Will Rinaman is, but to begin with, lets take their timeline.

April 22, the cuff band order is issued. Guderian is ordered to deliver it personally (I like this bit, the Soviets are on the Oder, and the Chief of Staff is ordered on a wild goose chase to Southern Austria). Anyway, please explain how and why Guderian was ordered to do this when he was dismissed as Chief of Staff on 28th March, (ordered to take sick leave by Hitler) a full 25 days before these Gentlemen tell us the cuff band order was issued? Something must be wrong here, no? There are several sources for Guderian's dismissal, I used Panzer Leader, his autobiography.

Secondly, the cuff band order was not issued on April 22. It was issued on March 27th when a telegram was sent to 6th SS Panzer Armee HQ. Guderian was not ordered to deliver it, although Himmler may have been ordered down. There is a suggestion that he travelled to Vienna, where an angry Dietrich threw his own medal at him. My reference for this is Reynold's history of the 1st SS Panzer Corp, although Robin Cross's Fallen Eagle also has a few details.

Lucas described the chamberpot story as apocryphal in Hitlers Enforcers (chapter on Dietrich), whilst Reynolds talks about the division's reaction, but does not mention anything like this, perhaps because he considers the story apocryphal too.

Thus, having demonstrated there is some major confusion here about dates and personalities, let us look at Neumann himself.

One striking fact jumps at us from reading the page you referred to. Neumann was an Officer in "Viking". Viking was the name for an SS Panzer Division. This division was not the 1st LSSAH or 12th HJ, but 5th SS Panzer Division. This division did not belong to 6th SS Panzer Armee (I believe) but IV SS Panzer Corps (together with SS T). Therefore, this account is written by a man who was not there when the men of the LSSAH

"tore off their decorations as well as their stripes and sent the lot addressed to the Chancellery in Berlin, in a latrine bucket. In it, too, they put an arm taken from a corpse".

So, we have an article strewn with factual errors, that is quoting as if an eye-witness, a man who could not have been there.

As I said, this evidence is poor. If I am wrong to show whole chunks of it are factually incorrect, then so be it. I must ask, though, how I (or any of us) can accept this as evidence for anything in these circumstances? I do not blame you for this, you didn't write the article, but I do think it unfair of you to criticise me for concentrating on trivialities and basic facts, when this entire article is suspect. Do you stand by this article, or do you agree with my dates for Guderian's dismissal and the cuff band order. If you agree with me, what is your opinion of this article in the light of that?


IronDuke

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 8/26/2004 1:34:10 AM >

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 62
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 3:30:03 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline 		Hells Bells guys, the war finished and German soldiers surrendered all over the place! Most of them didn't care who they surrendered to as long as it wasn't the Soviets. Can we move on to something more consequential please

I've already posted a link to a relatively lengthy article regarding the Malmedy massacre, the subsequent trial at Dachau and other related incidents. Can we get everyone's attention on this? Am I starting to sound like a schoolteacher?

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Golf33)
Post #: 63
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 5:23:57 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

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


As were lots of other people. So what? Can you tell us which other units were in the area at the time. Why be selective?

quote:

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


Unfortunately, I think it's this sort of comment which turns other forum readers off.

quote:

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

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


This just seems like another attempt to credit Patton at the expense of others on the flimiest of grounds. If that is your intent, we're just likely to rehash the other thread and get this one locked up as well, so lets drop it. It's faulty reasoning. Austria is in Europe and so was Eisenhower, so we could credit him if you will allow it. I don't know where Devers was but he was in Southern Germany on 5th May, and was an Army Group Commander so maybe he was around and we can credit him. I prefer to credit a Sergeant (who has so far remained nameless) in the US 36th Infantry Division. Lets agree to disagree, we've both presented our evidence, anyone interested can decide for themselves.

Regards,
IronDuke



quote:

As were lots of other people. So what? Can you tell us which other units were in the area at the time. Why be selective?



Because it is Patton who is under discussion. I have conclusively proven that Patton was in Austria on May 7-8, 1945.


quote:

Unfortunately, I think it's this sort of comment which turns other forum readers off.


All the information I put together has all been from credible sources, INCLUDING historians, just as you had to piece together the history of the 36th Division from SEVERAL sources.

This only indicates to me the sometimes poor and incomplete work some historians do.

quote:

This just seems like another attempt to credit Patton at the expense of others on the flimiest of grounds. If that is your intent, we're just likely to rehash the other thread and get this one locked up as well, so lets drop it.


EVERY WEBSITE including online encyclopedias and Military Journals credit Patton with Dietrichs's and 6th SS Panzer's surrender.

My research (from historians and unit histories) has PROVEN them to be correct, and YOU to be INCORRECT. Anyone reading this information for themselves can see that quite clearly.

As with those last two threads, whenever you guys start to lose an argument, your recourse is to close down the thread.

I have no doubt that as you guys lose the argument here, this thread will also be closed down.


quote:

It's faulty reasoning. Austria is in Europe and so was Eisenhower, so we could credit him if you will allow it. I don't know where Devers was but he was in Southern Germany on 5th May, and was an Army Group Commander so maybe he was around and we can credit him. I prefer to credit a Sergeant (who has so far remained nameless) in the US 36th Infantry Division. Lets agree to disagree, we've both presented our evidence, anyone interested can decide for themselves.


Well, what can I say to this type of reasoning?

EVERYONE knows that the senior commander available at the time of surrender gets the credit. I didn't make up the rules. This usually works for German Armies as well. Rommel received credit for the surrender of British Officers, and not Hitler.

Patton, at the time of the surrender, was a FOUR STAR GENERAL, and out-ranked everyone there.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/26/2004 3:26:57 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 64
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 5:32:59 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

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


quote:

Be careful what you wish for

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


As I said in that thread in response to this request, the research is yours, why do I need to get involved? Presumably, you have considered the standard received wisdom about the generation of Cobra in order to prove it wrong, so it would be easier (and more beneficial to your case) if you did this, as you won't need much research having already done it.


quote:

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


quote:

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


Most people don't know this. Dietrich was caught with his wife by a Sergeant. He didn't present himself at 3rd Army HQ and ask for Patton. The most senior Allied Soldier present when Dietrich surrendered was a Master Sergeant. Why just include Austria, why not place his surrender in Europe and credit Bradley or Ike? I am sorry, but I find this reasoning unbalanced. I can see no reason for it, other than to try and attempt to credit Patton with something that was nothing to do with him. As I said, we're getting nowhere as usual, we've both put our case, everyone else can decide who made the most sense.

IronDuke



quote:

As I said in that thread in response to this request, the research is yours, why do I need to get involved? Presumably, you have considered the standard received wisdom about the generation of Cobra in order to prove it wrong, so it would be easier (and more beneficial to your case) if you did this, as you won't need much research having already done it.


First, you dared me to present the information. Since you presented it as a challenge, and since most people don't have D'Este's book, I requested that you give D'Este's account of who HE credits with originating Operation Cobra.

It was your challenge, and you wanted to defend D'Este.


quote:

Dietrich was caught with his wife by a Sergeant. He didn't present himself at 3rd Army HQ and ask for Patton. The most senior Allied Soldier present when Dietrich surrendered was a Master Sergeant. Why just include Austria, why not place his surrender in Europe and credit Bradley or Ike? I am sorry, but I find this reasoning unbalanced. I can see no reason for it, other than to try and attempt to credit Patton with something that was nothing to do with him. As I said, we're getting nowhere as usual, we've both put our case, everyone else can decide who made the most sense.



What type of reasoning is this?

You are really reaching for straws.

I have never heard anyone make such comments like this before.

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 65
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 5:38:20 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ID:

quote:

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


This is fine.

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

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

So my question is this:

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


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

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

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

Regards,
IronDuke



quote:

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


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

Let me explain:

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

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

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

The same could be said for many other divisions.

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

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

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

I would like to see conclusive proof on the matter.

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


I don't agree. My sources do go beyond April 1945, Stanton lists all the US units and what they were doing until the end of the war, and then up until they were returned to the US for decommissioning. Some of the later entries give unit information for December 1945 where applicable. Stanton clearly lists the floaters as you term them. He lists 71st Division as joining third army on 8 April. He gives no such listing for 36th. The more examples you give, the more of your examples that Stanton confirms, only shows he did know and list when Divisions joined Third Army, and therefore didn't list (as in the 36th's case) when they didn't. I think your evidence is helping me rather than yourself.

As for the 36th Division remaining behind whilst other parts of the Army moved on, I don't see anything wrong here. The Americans were mopping up and manning the demarkation line with the Soviets. German resistance was light and hundreds of thousands were surrendering, why would Patch take everybody across the border into Austria?

I repeat, Stanton gives no indication of any transfer, where we know from other sources a transfer took place, he confirms it. As I said, we've said everything there is to say, people will make up their own minds.

IronDuke




quote:

I don't agree. My sources do go beyond April 1945, Stanton lists all the US units and what they were doing until the end of the war, and then up until they were returned to the US for decommissioning. Some of the later entries give unit information for December 1945 where applicable. Stanton clearly lists the floaters as you term them. He lists 71st Division as joining third army on 8 April. He gives no such listing for 36th. The more examples you give, the more of your examples that Stanton confirms, only shows he did know and list when Divisions joined Third Army, and therefore didn't list (as in the 36th's case) when they didn't. I think your evidence is helping me rather than yourself.

As for the 36th Division remaining behind whilst other parts of the Army moved on, I don't see anything wrong here. The Americans were mopping up and manning the demarkation line with the Soviets. German resistance was light and hundreds of thousands were surrendering, why would Patch take everybody across the border into Austria?

I repeat, Stanton gives no indication of any transfer, where we know from other sources a transfer took place, he confirms it. As I said, we've said everything there is to say, people will make up their own minds.




Does Stanton list the transfer of the 10th Division to Patton for 48 hours?

Even the 36th Division's unit history treats the Seventh Army as a separate unit in May, 1945, and NOT as the parent organization.

Even so, Patton, as a FOUR STAR GENERAL, would be the senior general in Austrai at the time of the surrenders.

Historians can often be biased and careless in their research.

Every source I have found credits PATTON with the surrenders.

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 66
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 5:41:46 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Austria is in Europe and so was Eisenhower, so we could credit him if you will allow it.


Seems pretty reasonable, "troops under Eisenhower's command" should have included every Allied soldier in Europe if I am not mistaken .

As far as how the chain of command works, any senior officer present may have a degree of authority but is absolutely NOT automatically 'in command'. That would be the antithesis of the chain of command, which specifies that orders come from above, not from the side.

If General A starts giving direct orders to unit in General B's army, not only will General B be very annoyed, General A is likely to cop a kicking from their mutual boss.

Regards
33



Well, what can I say to this type of reasoning?

You guys are now making up the rules as you go along.

These are not my rules; every nation and every army has used the senior commander available at the time of surrender rule, to receive the credit for surrender of enemy officers.

My advice would be for you guys to write the Pentagon and the US Army and advise them of your collective thoughts on this matter.

_____________________________


(in reply to Golf33)
Post #: 67
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 5:54:10 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Here is more Information regarding the 6th SS Panzer Army and Sepp Dietrich surrendering to Patton:


Encompass: A Journal of Military History
Vol. I No. 1
February 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Chronological Survey of the Waffen SS

By Will Rinaman




Excerpts:


January 1945 6th Panzer Army is renamed 6th SS Panzer Army and sent to Hungary to destroy the Russian bridgeheads over the River Gran.

February – April 1945 The attacks in Hungary fail and the 6th SS Panzer Army is redeployed southeast of Vienna. Neumann sees Dietrich's staff car pass his convoy in March on the way to Austria. Dietrich was forced to retreat into Vienna. This was his last battle. The Viking Division retreats into Austria on March 29.

April 12, 1945 Neumann is promoted to Hauptsturmfuhrer (Captain) while engaged in the losing defense of Vienna. That night he and a handful of other men slip out of the siege lines around the city.

April 22, 1945 Hitler accuses the 6th SS Panzer Army of lack of fighting spirit and orders the force to remove its distinctive sleeve-bands and freezes all promotions. Dietrich does not pass these orders on to his men. Guderian is ordered to deliver the instructions from Hitler personally, but he refuses. Neumann describes how the LAH reacted to Hitler's order: “The insult was violently resented by the whole of the LAH. They were thunderstruck at first by this totally undeserved reproach. Then astonishment gave way to indignation. Some of them tore off their decorations as well as their stripes and sent the lot addressed to the Chancellery in Berlin, in a latrine bucket. In it, too, they put an arm taken from a corpse. All this is worrying, and terribly indicative of the attitude which prevails in the SS at the time.”

May 8, 1945 6th SS Panzer Army surrenders to General George Patton.


http://amh.freehosting.net/waffen.html



I don't know where this comes from, but a few brief comments will suffice. The reason I like factual accuracy is because without it, you can prove anything. If someone's basic facts are wrong, then their interpretation must be suspect, and you begin to wonder at their reliability. At the risk of being accused of nitpicking again...

I don't know who this Neumann or Will Rinaman is, but to begin with, lets take their timeline.

April 22, the cuff band order is issued. Guderian is ordered to deliver it personally (I like this bit, the Soviets are on the Oder, and the Chief of Staff is ordered on a wild goose chase to Southern Austria). Anyway, please explain how and why Guderian was ordered to do this when he was dismissed as Chief of Staff on 28th March, (ordered to take sick leave by Hitler) a full 25 days before these Gentlemen tell us the cuff band order was issued? Something must be wrong here, no? There are several sources for Guderian's dismissal, I used Panzer Leader, his autobiography.

Secondly, the cuff band order was not issued on April 22. It was issued on March 27th when a telegram was sent to 6th SS Panzer Armee HQ. Guderian was not ordered to deliver it, although Himmler may have been ordered down. There is a suggestion that he travelled to Vienna, where an angry Dietrich threw his own medal at him. My reference for this is Reynold's history of the 1st SS Panzer Corp, although Robin Cross's Fallen Eagle also has a few details.

Lucas described the chamberpot story as apocryphal in Hitlers Enforcers (chapter on Dietrich), whilst Reynolds talks about the division's reaction, but does not mention anything like this, perhaps because he considers the story apocryphal too.

Thus, having demonstrated there is some major confusion here about dates and personalities, let us look at Neumann himself.

One striking fact jumps at us from reading the page you referred to. Neumann was an Officer in "Viking". Viking was the name for an SS Panzer Division. This division was not the 1st LSSAH or 12th HJ, but 5th SS Panzer Division. This division did not belong to 6th SS Panzer Armee (I believe) but IV SS Panzer Corps (together with SS T). Therefore, this account is written by a man who was not there when the men of the LSSAH

"tore off their decorations as well as their stripes and sent the lot addressed to the Chancellery in Berlin, in a latrine bucket. In it, too, they put an arm taken from a corpse".

So, we have an article strewn with factual errors, that is quoting as if an eye-witness, a man who could not have been there.

As I said, this evidence is poor. If I am wrong to show whole chunks of it are factually incorrect, then so be it. I must ask, though, how I (or any of us) can accept this as evidence for anything in these circumstances? I do not blame you for this, you didn't write the article, but I do think it unfair of you to criticise me for concentrating on trivialities and basic facts, when this entire article is suspect. Do you stand by this article, or do you agree with my dates for Guderian's dismissal and the cuff band order. If you agree with me, what is your opinion of this article in the light of that?


IronDuke



First, I am not trying to prove the"Arm band" incident. You found a couple of minor errors revolving around a couple of dates.

You continue to nip at facts that HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the issue at hand: namely, troops under Patton's command receiving the surrender of the 6th SS Panzer Division.

What you have discussed above is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the central issues.

Second, my own research has PROVEN the accuracy of the May 8, 1945 date, which EVERY OTHER website agrees with, including online encyclopedias.

Based on your statements above, your conclusion would be to dismiss the ENTIRE ARTICLE over some minor inaccurracies that have nothing to do with the issue at hand: namely, Patton's receiving 6th SS Panzer's surrender.

That is like saying, because D'Este makes some mistakes in his book on Patton, then we should dismiss the entire the book.

This is faulty reasoning, and again, you are reaching for straws.

I have proven with solid evidence that Patton was in Austria on May 7-8, 1945; that the 80th Division received the surrender of many elements of the 6th SS Panzer Divisions (among others), and that Patton was the senior commander present.

You have yet to prove ANY of the central facts to be wrong.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/26/2004 5:40:18 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 68
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 7:00:38 PM   
riverbravo


Posts: 1320
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline 		From what I gather on the armband deal is this...

At a conference on 23 March Hitler was whining and crying about Sepp and childishly blaiming Sepp for pulling back...'If we lose the war it will be Dietrich's fault'...what a fuhrer

liebstandarte,Das Reich,Totenkopf and Hohenstaufen all got the bands yanked.

A telegram was sent so between the 23/24 and the 28th of March sounds right.

It seems himmler was even shocked at the armband order.

'I would have to drive to the Plattansee (lake batalon) to take the crosses off the dead.A German SS man cannot give more than his life to you, my Fuhrer'.

The oilfields still fell to the russians.

All in all this was a petty order.No more than daddy trying to scold his self thinking kid.

It seems to me Adolf needed to pick up a rifle and practice what he preached.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 69
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 7:15:11 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline 		I can see that you guys are more interested in scoring points off each other than actually having a meaningful discussion It's a shame because I believe you're capable of so much more

Sorry RB, that wasn't directed at you

< Message edited by Kevinugly -- 8/26/2004 5:15:51 PM >

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 70
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 7:43:38 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I can see that you guys are more interested in scoring points off each other than actually having a meaningful discussion It's a shame because I believe you're capable of so much more

Sorry RB, that wasn't directed at you


Thank you Kevinugly, for those meaningful words.

I am trying to use as much factual material as possible that is pertinent to the central issue.

Yet, many of the others are arguing about everything BUT this central issue.

This is frustrating.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 71
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 7:58:42 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline 		VR, I know how difficult it is when these discussions meander off into various sidetracks although imho you're as guilty as the next (as I've been in other threads too). Sometimes it's best just to draw a line and move on.

So what's your take on Malmedy and in particular the roles of Dietrich and Peiper?

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 72
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 8:58:46 PM   
riverbravo


Posts: 1320
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly


So what's your take on Malmedy and in particular the roles of Dietrich and Peiper?



Malmedy.

A bunch of troops who had given up that were shot in the back while unarmed in a field outside of a little town in france....Simple enough statement,thats the way I excactly see it.

This is a POV I have read and discussed from the Nazi ( I say nazi because it isnt fair to say german, I myself have a pretty strong view point about the differences between a Nazi and a German) POV that goes sumfink like this.

Peipers boys fired on the lite vehicles of the Americans (HT's,Jeeps and the like).After a few rounds (or volleys) the yanks threw their hands up.The SS told the yanks to drop their weapons and waite for another group to take them prisoner who were coming up the road.As soon as KG Peiper started to split the yanks picked up their weapons and started to fire on the KG.After the KG got the situation back under their control they then treated the yanks as war criminals.

The above paragraph is not a direct quote but in my own words reinturpetating something I have read in a few different spots.

How about this spin on the deal.

LIFE ON THE EASTERN FRONT

We all know that the German/Russian war better known as the 'The Eastern Front' was a war of annihilation.

Were the boys in KG Peiper just playing war the only way they knew how?The LSSAH was all over the eastern front.These guys had been in the thick of it in the most brutal conflict known to man,IMHO.Both sides practiced the killing of prisoners.The Russians mutilated dead German soldats bodies.The SS burned villages and strung'em up high on the lamp poles.The Russians burned towns to deny the enemy...etc etc..So it was on the eastern front.

Did KG Peiper look at this as just a fact of war?Did they not know,or believe the propaganda about the yanks killing them off as easy as the reds would?

I stated how I feel in my first comment,they were murdered.No two ways about it.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 73
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 9:54:15 PM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		Do you blame the snake for being a snake? Maybe not, but you sure as hell punish it.

Tomo

(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 74
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/26/2004 11:37:34 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline 		Since Malmedy was a relatively isolated incident (lots of other US prisoners were taken prisoner by SS units, Peiper's included, and treated fairly) you have to wonder why it happened at all. A jumpy machine-gunner? An officer who'd seen several too many battles? An American raw recruit? A 'shot-like' sound? All could have contributed to those few seconds of slaughter.

I have a grudging admiration for Peiper for attempting to take the blame on his own shoulders since he was the commanding officer although he wasn't actually there. The subsequent trial of Peiper and other SS men at Dachau in 1946 over the massacre was an absolute sham though.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 75
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 12:18:53 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

VR, I know how difficult it is when these discussions meander off into various sidetracks although imho you're as guilty as the next (as I've been in other threads too). Sometimes it's best just to draw a line and move on.



We are not talking about other theads; of the discussions in this thread, I have tried to stick to the main central issues at hand.

But as usual, it wanders off in all kinds of directions.

No hard feelings to anyone.

I am not trying to defend Patton; but the research led in that direction. . .

Cheers!

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 76
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 12:22:16 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline 		As to Malmeady:

I'm wondering if it would be better to have this discussion in a separate thread?

Some of these threads start to get so long, it becomes a pain after a while

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 77
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 3:13:00 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I can see that you guys are more interested in scoring points off each other than actually having a meaningful discussion It's a shame because I believe you're capable of so much more

Sorry RB, that wasn't directed at you


I can see I am outstaying my welcome, my apologies. You're right that this thread should move on to better things. I'll finish up and leave you to debate Malmedy in peace, I think I posted my thoughts on it earlier.

I'm going to show Dietrich didn't surrender to Patton. I'll be quoting and accepting large chunks of Von Rom's evidence to help me.

Von Rom began with:

quote:

Von Rom
I found out more regarding Dietrich's surrender:

1) Patton was in Austria on May 7, 1945. This is when many important Nazis surrendered, including Dietrich. Patton, along with Patterson, the Under Secretary of War, flew to XX Corps HQ at St. Martin/Innkreis, Austria on May 7, 1945 (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p. 697).


and

quote:

Von Rom
Later Dietrich fought in the Ardennes in 1944, where he was found complicit in the massacre of U.S. soldiers near Malmedy.

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



This led him to further state the following: Note the dates given below for Patton's stay in Austria now stretch from 7th when he visited XX Corp HQ (See Von Rom's evidence above), to 8th when we know Dietrich surrendered in Austria (See Von Rom's evidence above.)

quote:

Von Rom
Because it is Patton who is under discussion. I have conclusively proven that Patton was in Austria on May 7-8, 1945.


quote:

Von Rom
I have proven with solid evidence that Patton was in Austria on May 7-8, 1945


Von Rom then tells us that Patton accepted Dietrich's surrender because:

quote:

Von Rom
EVERYONE knows that the senior commander available at the time of surrender gets the credit. I didn't make up the rules.
Capitals are Von Rom's.

quote:

Von Rom
Even so, Patton, as a FOUR STAR GENERAL, would be the senior general in Austrai at the time of the surrenders.
Capitals are Von Rom's.

quote:

Von Rom
Patton, at the time of the surrender, was a FOUR STAR GENERAL, and out-ranked everyone there.
Capitals are Von Rom's.

I would like to include one further piece of evidence into this. Carlos D'Este Patton: A Genius for War. Chapter 45, pg 733.

quote:

D'Este
Patton summoned the Third Army correspondents to the war room of his headquarters in regensburg. With the familiar figure of Willie trainling behind him, Patton began by disclosing that the War would end officially that morning, May 8 1945.


Later on page 735.

quote:

D'Este
Later that afternoon correspondents Newman and Cornelius Ryan went to Patton's trailer to pay their final respects before departing for Austria in search of fresh stories.


Regensburg is in germany, north east of Munich, a fact I confirmed when I consulted my Road Atlas of Europe 1989. Patton was there all day.

Therefore, add

quote:

Von Rom
He (Dietrich) surrendered his army...on May 8, 1945.


to....

quote:

D'Este
Patton summoned the Third Army correspondents to the war room of his headquarters in regensburg. With the familiar figure of Willie trainling behind him, Patton began by disclosing that the War would end officially that morning, May 8 1945.


and mix in....

quote:

Von Rom
EVERYONE knows that the senior commander available at the time of surrender gets the credit. I didn't make up the rules.


together with the logic of

quote:

Von Rom
Even so, Patton, as a FOUR STAR GENERAL, would be the senior general in Austrai at the time of the surrenders.


...and we can show that Dietrich can't have surrendered to General Patton. My thanks to Von Rom for his help in this analysis. We may have shown Dietrich didn't surrender to Patton, but I do not know who the senior Officer in Austria was at that time, so the question remains open. My guess is either Patch or Devers.

As for

quote:

Von Rom
Patton, at the time of the surrender, was a FOUR STAR GENERAL, and out-ranked everyone there.
Capitals are Von Rom's.

D'Este tells us that Patton got his fourth star at the same time as Hodges (so they were equals) but after Devers and Bradley (who were therefore his seniors). This meant he was joint fourth highest ranking (US) Field Officer in Europe.

As for the 36th infantry division, captors of Sepp Dietrich, Shelby Stanton conclusively shows they were part of 7th Army (General Patch) on 8th May 1945.

Many thanks and regards,
IronDuke

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 8/27/2004 1:14:24 AM >

(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 78
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 4:53:38 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I'm going to show Dietrich didn't surrender to Patton. I'll be quoting and accepting large chunks of Von Rom's evidence to help me.

Von Rom began with:

quote:

Von Rom
I found out more regarding Dietrich's surrender:

1) Patton was in Austria on May 7, 1945. This is when many important Nazis surrendered, including Dietrich. Patton, along with Patterson, the Under Secretary of War, flew to XX Corps HQ at St. Martin/Innkreis, Austria on May 7, 1945 (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p. 697).


and

quote:

Von Rom
Later Dietrich fought in the Ardennes in 1944, where he was found complicit in the massacre of U.S. soldiers near Malmedy.

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



This led him to further state the following: Note the dates given below for Patton's stay in Austria now stretch from 7th when he visited XX Corp HQ (See Von Rom's evidence above), to 8th when we know Dietrich surrendered in Austria (See Von Rom's evidence above.)

quote:

Von Rom
Because it is Patton who is under discussion. I have conclusively proven that Patton was in Austria on May 7-8, 1945.


quote:

Von Rom
I have proven with solid evidence that Patton was in Austria on May 7-8, 1945


Von Rom then tells us that Patton accepted Dietrich's surrender because:

quote:

Von Rom
EVERYONE knows that the senior commander available at the time of surrender gets the credit. I didn't make up the rules.
Capitals are Von Rom's.

quote:

Von Rom
Even so, Patton, as a FOUR STAR GENERAL, would be the senior general in Austrai at the time of the surrenders.
Capitals are Von Rom's.

quote:

Von Rom
Patton, at the time of the surrender, was a FOUR STAR GENERAL, and out-ranked everyone there.
Capitals are Von Rom's.

I would like to include one further piece of evidence into this. Carlos D'Este Patton: A Genius for War. Chapter 45, pg 733.

quote:

D'Este
Patton summoned the Third Army correspondents to the war room of his headquarters in regensburg. With the familiar figure of Willie trainling behind him, Patton began by disclosing that the War would end officially that morning, May 8 1945.


Later on page 735.

quote:

D'Este
Later that afternoon correspondents Newman and Cornelius Ryan went to Patton's trailer to pay their final respects before departing for Austria in search of fresh stories.


Regensburg is in germany, north east of Munich, a fact I confirmed when I consulted my Road Atlas of Europe 1989. Patton was there all day.

Therefore, add

quote:

Von Rom
He (Dietrich) surrendered his army...on May 8, 1945.


to....

quote:

D'Este
Patton summoned the Third Army correspondents to the war room of his headquarters in regensburg. With the familiar figure of Willie trainling behind him, Patton began by disclosing that the War would end officially that morning, May 8 1945.


and mix in....

quote:

Von Rom
EVERYONE knows that the senior commander available at the time of surrender gets the credit. I didn't make up the rules.


together with the logic of

quote:

Von Rom
Even so, Patton, as a FOUR STAR GENERAL, would be the senior general in Austrai at the time of the surrenders.


...and we can show that Dietrich can't have surrendered to General Patton. My thanks to Von Rom for his help in this analysis. We may have shown Dietrich didn't surrender to Patton, but I do not know who the senior Officer in Austria was at that time, so the question remains open. My guess is either Patch or Devers.

As for

quote:

Von Rom
Patton, at the time of the surrender, was a FOUR STAR GENERAL, and out-ranked everyone there.
Capitals are Von Rom's.

D'Este tells us that Patton got his fourth star at the same time as Hodges (so they were equals) but after Devers and Bradley (who were therefore his seniors). This meant he was joint fourth highest ranking (US) Field Officer in Europe.

As for the 36th infantry division, captors of Sepp Dietrich, Shelby Stanton conclusively shows they were part of 7th Army (General Patch) on 8th May 1945.

Many thanks and regards,
IronDuke



Ironduke:

Nice try, but still no cigar

Let me explain:

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 there is NO discrepancy in the facts.

We also know that Dietrich surrendered on May 8,1945.

I had stated that Patton was the senior commander in Austria at the time.

You erroneously chose to identify the senior commander in Europe.

Further, there is absolutely NO question that major elements of Dietrich's 6th SS Panzer Army surrendered to Third Army's 80th Division on May 7, 1945. Patton was in Austria at the time.

There are extensive G-2 reports from the division confirming this.


80th Division G-2 reports:

"The absolute and complete disintegration of German resistance during the last days of the war in Europe was never more apparent than in the 80th Division's drive through Austria, from Braunau to Liezen. With the end in sight, thousands of German soldiers threw down their arms with the realization of the hopelessness of further resistance. During the Spring campaigns, the idol of Nazis had been beaten to dust on all fronts, and with each succeeding Allied victory, greater doubt was cast in warped minds for Nazi victory.

On 6 May, 1945, the garrison of the town of Kirchdorf surrendered (strength 350). On the evening of the same day, representatives of the 80th Division met with August Eigruber, Gauleiter of Oberdonau, who desired to surrender his Gau to U.S. forces and be allowed to move east to fight the Russians. This proposition was denied. The morning of 7 May, General Major (U.S. Brig. Gen.) Soeth surrendered his Corps of 20,000 troops, formed two days previously in the National Redoubt area. On 8 May, 1945, General der Panzer Truppen Balck, Commanding General, 6th German Army and former Commander of German Army Group 'G', surrendered his command, 102,000 strong, to the 80th Division.

Also on 7 May, 1945, SS Brigade Keitel, under the command of SS Major Keitel [Author's note: This was the son of General Keitel, Hitler's right hand.], surrendered to our forces. Brigade Keitel, strength 3,000 was an element of the 6th SS Panzer Army. Keitel's report that Sepp Dietrich still commanded the 6th SS Panzer Army was the first knowledge of the Allies that Dietrich still lived. He had previously been reported dead by the Russians.

On 8 May, 1945, General der Panzer Truppen Balck, Commanding General, 6th German Army and former Commander of Army Group 'G', arrived in Liezen from the Southeast. He asked to surrender his entire army to the 80th Division. He was told that all troops west and north of the Enns River by 12:01 A.M., 9 May, 1945 could surrender to U.S. forces.

The strength of the 6th German Army at the close of the war was estimated to be approximately 200,000 and consisted of the following units: 1st and 3rd Panzer Divisions, 1st and 9th Mountain Divisions, 5th SS Panzer Division Viking and 14th SS Grenadier Division (1st Ukrainian). Approximately 102,000 of them were across the Enns River by 12:01 A.M., 9 May, 1945. In addition, elements of the 2nd Panzer Army, 6th SS Panzer Army, 7th German Army and the 7th SS Mountain Division (Prinz Eugene) of Army Group 'F' surrendered."

http://www.thetroubleshooters.com/history156.html


Since Patton was the commander of Third Army, then this is credited to him.

Finally, after spending some time in the library I found that the 36th Division was part of Seventh Army.

As I have mentioned, usually, the senior commander in the area of surrender receives or accepts enemy surrenders. Since the majority of Seventh Army was in Bavaria in May, 1945, that would leave Patton as the Four Star General in Austria up until at least 10:00 am on May 8, 1945.

Do we know at what time Dietrich surrendered?

I won't dwell on the issue. It is a rather moot point anyway.

Elements of Dietrich's 6th SS Panzer Army surrendered to Third Army, and this has been proven beyond any question.

Further to Dietrich and Patton:

"Dietrich. . . on his own initiative, ordered the Hohenenstaufen [9th SS Pz Div] and Hitlerjugend [12th SS Pz Div] to withdraw to the River Ybbs, where they surrendered to Patton's troops" (Messenger, Charles, Hitler's Gladiator, Brassey's defence Publishers, p.171).

Therefore, all those websites that state that Dietrich's 6th SS Panzer Army surrendered to General Patton and/or to Third Army are correct.

As to the Allied Officer who finally accepted Dietrich's surrender?

Who knows?

Even the historians are mute on this point.

So, let's let that Sergeant have the glory.

Thanks for the effort.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/27/2004 3:47:29 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 79
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 5:46:26 PM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline 		Still quoting from Farago, that noted journalist and author of works on conspiracy theories I see. But I won't quote from that distinguished historian Charles Whiting in deference to your feelings.

All you've proved is that there is reasonable doubt as to whether Patton was actually in Austria at the time of Dietrich's surrender. In any case, the German army was surrendering in droves to whatever Allied unit was closest (unless it was Soviet). Donitz (Hitler's successer) surrendered to Montgomery on Luneberg Heath on May 4th. Around 300,000 German troops surrendered to Gerow in the Ruhr following Model's suicide on April 21st. It just happens that these generals were at these locations when the surrenders occured, there is no credit to be taken apart from being part of the victorious alliance.

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 80
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 6:43:00 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Still quoting from Farago, that noted journalist and author of works on conspiracy theories I see. But I won't quote from that distinguished historian Charles Whiting in deference to your feelings.

All you've proved is that there is reasonable doubt as to whether Patton was actually in Austria at the time of Dietrich's surrender. In any case, the German army was surrendering in droves to whatever Allied unit was closest (unless it was Soviet). Donitz (Hitler's successer) surrendered to Montgomery on Luneberg Heath on May 4th. Around 300,000 German troops surrendered to Gerow in the Ruhr following Model's suicide on April 21st. It just happens that these generals were at these locations when the surrenders occured, there is no credit to be taken apart from being part of the victorious alliance.




quote:

Still quoting from Farago, that noted journalist and author of works on conspiracy theories I see. But I won't quote from that distinguished historian Charles Whiting in deference to your feelings.



Sorry, but you have been greatly misinformed.

BTW, I have more definitions on what hearsay means, if you need them. Just trying to be helpful.


Ladislas Farago's Credentials:


Mr. Farago is very qualified to write books on military history and intelligence.

He is internationally known as a writer, military historian, biographer, and as an expert in espionage and intelligence.

He served in WWII as Chief of Research and Planning, Special Warfare Branch, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy.

He is the author of 18 books on intelligence and military history, and has edited Corps Diplomatique and United Nations World.

He wrote The War of Wits which is a classic of military and political intelligence.

He also wrote The Tenth Fleet which has been heralded as the classic study of US anti-submarine action in WWII.

He also authored a number of works which are still classified, such as History of Propaganda in World War II and Morale and Its Maintenance in the German Army.

Both his books on Patton: Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (which took 12 years to research and write) as well as The Last Days of Patton were made into movies. And both books have stood the test of time for their content.

The screenplay for the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! was written by Ladislas Farago, Larry Forrester, Ryuzo Kikushima, and Hideo Oguni.



quote:

All you've proved is that there is reasonable doubt as to whether Patton was actually in Austria at the time of Dietrich's surrender. In any case, the German army was surrendering in droves to whatever Allied unit was closest (unless it was Soviet). Donitz (Hitler's successer) surrendered to Montgomery on Luneberg Heath on May 4th. Around 300,000 German troops surrendered to Gerow in the Ruhr following Model's suicide on April 21st. It just happens that these generals were at these locations when the surrenders occured, there is no credit to be taken apart from being part of the victorious alliance.


So, what's your point?

Ike just happened to be Supreme Commander.

Marshall just happened to be Chief of Staff.

Allied Armies just happened to invade Normandy on D-Day. . .

Rommel just happened to be in North Africa. . .

I'm amazed the ends some of you will go to, to deny the facts of history, especially when it relates to Third Army

History and circumstances often hinge on being in the right place at the right time. . .

The interesting thing is that D'Este completely leaves out the fact that Patton was even in Austria on May 7, 1945.

I have at least done my homework and shown that Patton was in Austria at this time.

In addition, there is Irrefutable Proof that Dietrich's 6th SS Panzer Army DID surrender to Third Army. So Patton did not even have to be in Austria to receive credit for this. Yet again, D'Este and other historians completely leave this fact out of their books.

I realize this information may trouble you.

But history can sometimes be uncomfortable.


1) Patton was in Austria on May 7, 1945. This is when many important German army units and Nazis surrendered. Patton, along with Patterson, the Under Secretary of War, flew to XX Corps HQ at St. Martin/Innkreis, Austria on May 7, 1945 (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p. 697).

2) Units of Third Army (the 80th Division) moved into Austria in May, 1945 and accepted the surrender of units of 6th SS Panzer Army:

On 7 May, 1945, SS Brigade Keitel, under the command of SS Major Keitel [Author's note: This was the son of General Keitel, Hitler's right hand.], surrendered to our forces. Brigade Keitel, strength 3,000 was an element of the 6th SS Panzer Army. Keitel's report that Sepp Dietrich still commanded the 6th SS Panzer Army was the first knowledge of the Allies that Dietrich still lived. He had previously been reported dead by the Russians.

http://www.thetroubleshooters.com/history156.html


3) "Dietrich. . . on his own initiative, ordered the Hohenenstaufen [9th SS Pz Div] and Hitlerjugend [12th SS Pz Div] to withdraw to the River Ybbs, where they surrendered to Patton's troops" (Messenger, Charles, Hitler's Gladiator, Brassey's defence Publishers, p.171).


All of this conclusively proves those websites were correct.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/27/2004 5:55:03 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 81
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 7:48:36 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Still quoting from Farago, that noted journalist and author of works on conspiracy theories I see. But I won't quote from that distinguished historian Charles Whiting in deference to your feelings.



Let's Compare Authors, shall we?


Here are some opinions about "Charles Whiting's" writings:

*******************************************************************

The Other Battle of the Bulge: Operation Northwind (West Wall Series) > Customer Review #1:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Whiting

Reading the other posts about this book compels me to say a few things about the author. Charles Whiting is a popular, readable and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form. If you have read more than one of his books you will recognize the following:

1) lack of any kind of endnotes and few footnotes: where is this material coming from?
2) quotes from interviews with the author, which are not in any way anotated at the end of the book
3) praise of the common US soldier but uniformly harsh criticism of all senior U.S. leadership, especially Eisenhower
4) comparisons with Vietnam which, while occasionally interesting (he points out that William Westmorland fought in the Huertgen Forest without learning its lessons) usually border on the ridiculous
5) plagarism from his own works, including entire chapters, some of which have not even been re-written, but simply included whole in different books
6) where are the @and*#and! maps?

This book, like his "Ardennes: The Secret War" posits that Operation Nordwind was a bigger threat than the Battle of the Bulge to the Allies because it nearly defeated the Alliance politically at a time when they had already won the war militarily. It is an interesting conjecture, but it is tainted by the half-hidden glee that Whiting seems to feel over any disaster involving American troops and particularly their leadership. Everything he writes is written through that distoring lens. In any endeavour, if you want to find fault, you will, and in war this is particularly easy. Eisenhower was an armchair warrior and a true mediocrity as a strategist, but he was a superb military politician, maybe the only man who could have kept such a contentious alliance together until final victory. He deserves credit for holding it all together.

I have read five of Whitings books and found most of them to be very entertaining, especially because he tends to focus on American disasters which naturally have not gotten much press since the war, and thus have not been written about extensively. He puts books together like a novel, and is far from a dry writer. But his scholarship would not have met the standards of my high school history teacher, much less those of a true historian. He seems to write about what interest him only, is careless with his statistics and dates, includes facts that suit his opinions, states his opinions as facts, and constantly recycles his own material. You could probably file his books under historical fiction before you could file them under history."

************************************************************

Whiting, Charles. The Battle for Twelveland: An Account of Anglo-American Intelligence Operations Within Nazi Germany, 1939-1945. London, Leo Cooper, 1975. The Spymasters: The True Story of Anglo-American Intelligence Operations Within Nazi Germany, 1939-1945. New York: Dutton, 1976.

Constantinides says this is "a potpourri of fact and fiction, actuality and myth, assumptions, sketchy versions of certain events, contrived tie-ins, and a certain confusion." Nevertheless, the author is "sometimes so accurate as to indicate access to well-informed sources or successful combining of certain versions." There is also "a good segment on SIS's role and the basis of its intelligence successes against Germany."


Whiting, Charles. Gehlen: Germany's Master Spy. New York: Ballantine, 1972.

NameBase: "Charles Whiting's book is somewhat sensational in tone and doesn't cite sources.... There are altogether too many exclamation points, along with direct quotes that appear to be added for effect rather than accuracy. Most of the book concerns Gehlen's career in Germany, particularly after the war, rather than his associations with U.S. intelligence."

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/W_folder/whitf-whz.html

************************************************************


Here are more reviews about Whiting's books:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1580970540/002-0421982-5994431?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0971170975/002-0421982-5994431?v=glance

http://biologybooks.net/Heydrich_Reinhard_Heydrich.html

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:UXV1oixZNPwJ:www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_7_50/ai_63502486+charles+whiting+reviews&hl=en&lr=lang_en


******************************************

More reviews of Whiting's books:


1) http://216.239.51.104/search
q=cache:VQOn8Yl73RYJ:members.aol.com/VonRanke/wwii.html+historians+opinions+about+whiting+books&hl=en&lr=lang_en


2) http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:tnbjCYYQWHYJ:www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1580970559%3Fv%3Dglance+historians+opinions+about+charles+whiting+&hl=en&lr=lang_en


3) And this review:

"West Wall" Misses the Mark

Another assembly line book by Charles Whiting (is there an actual person with this name, or is it a pseudonym used by the publisher?)-sloppy writing and a total lack of any new insight or even information.

I picked up this book with anticipation about learning more on the often overlooked Allied campaign to break through the defenses of the German Siegfried line in the west.

Disappointment set in soon as popular myths about the French Maginot line are retold as fact while odd, irrelevant (and sometimes vulgar) anecdotes are inserted without adding anything to the story-do we really need to know that much about Ernest Hemingway? Yet not enough details are included on the structure or techniques of Organization Todt, the German contractor for the Siegfried Line and other massive wartime projects as just one example.

Do yourself a favor and buy any of the WWII books by Cornelius Ryan instead, especially "A Bridge too Far" which deals with a German resistance in the west as the Allies approached the Rhine.

http://bookworms.org/aws.cgi/mode_books/search_World%20War%20Series



*************************************


Now let's compare this with reviews about Farago's book:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)


Patton: Ordeal and Triumph, June 14, 2000
Reviewer: Tom Rawlings (Pakenham, Victoria, Australia) - See all my reviews

Amazon managed to obtain me an out of print copy, without which I would not be able to write this review. This book is an excellent exposition of George Patton the warrior and General. There is no doubt that had his and Bradley's roles been reversed that the war in Europe would have finished months earlier than it did. The failure to close the Falaise gap and the subsequent german escape is an example of indecision by both Eisenhower and Bradley. I have read three books on Patton and a Soldiers Story by Bradley - Patton was the warrior - Patton was the leader - Patton was the difference. Thanks Amazon for the effort to find me a copy. I appreciate it.


Must reading for anyone interested in WW II, February 25, 2000
Reviewer: "rjgrib" (Deltona, FL United States) - See all my reviews

Who can forget George C. Scott's incredible Oscar winning performance as Patton? Yet few people remember that the movie came mostly from this book and Omar Bradley's input. Patton was one of the most eccentric, brilliant, egotistical generals ever. This fine book takes you through his upbringing to his last days after the war. Farago is outstanding in his research and presentation. This is truly one of the greatest biographies ever written.


Give me maps!, July 14, 2004
Reviewer: A reader

Great history of the Third Army and Patton's life and command. I have the paperback copy and maps would have been extremely helpful and have added to my enjoyment. Every advance and movement is described in detail, both Allied and Axis, but trying to keep track in my mind drove me sometimes to distraction. With maps every chapter or so, this would definitely be a five star book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440168538/103-7621008-0603804?v=glance

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/27/2004 5:52:00 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 82
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 8:11:10 PM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline 		Faragos credentials.. LoL

Read my post carefully and you will see that I mentioned nothing about Third Army or 6th SS Panzeramee - just Dietrich and Patton. Your reaction reveals your stunning paranoia regarding Third Army, finding criticism and slurs where none are present.

My 'point' is that there is no credit to be taken from accepting the surrender of a beaten enemy apart from that of being a component of the winning side. Ultimately it is of no consequence exactly who the Germans surrendered to as the war closed - the surrendered to the Allies!

Hearsay? Presume we're on Dietrich here. Apart from his statement regarding Hitler's supposed 'Terror Order' prior to the 'Bulge there is no corroborating evidence - certainly nothing was passed on. Therefore it's hearsay, not even 'circumstantial evidence'

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 83
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 8:13:37 PM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline 		I'm not going to waste my time digging any more dirt on Farago, I've already posted enough and don't need to continuously repeat myself.

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 84
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 8:41:52 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Faragos credentials.. LoL

Read my post carefully and you will see that I mentioned nothing about Third Army or 6th SS Panzeramee - just Dietrich and Patton. Your reaction reveals your stunning paranoia regarding Third Army, finding criticism and slurs where none are present.

My 'point' is that there is no credit to be taken from accepting the surrender of a beaten enemy apart from that of being a component of the winning side. Ultimately it is of no consequence exactly who the Germans surrendered to as the war closed - the surrendered to the Allies!

Hearsay? Presume we're on Dietrich here. Apart from his statement regarding Hitler's supposed 'Terror Order' prior to the 'Bulge there is no corroborating evidence - certainly nothing was passed on. Therefore it's hearsay, not even 'circumstantial evidence'



quote:

Faragos credentials.. LoL


Ah, yes. . .

Yet his book was used for the movie Patton. And it has stood the test of time.




quote:

Read my post carefully and you will see that I mentioned nothing about Third Army or 6th SS Panzeramee - just Dietrich and Patton. Your reaction reveals your stunning paranoia regarding Third Army, finding criticism and slurs where none are present.





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.

And if I have to keep mentioning Third Army, it is because of the very odd logic some will use when discussing it.



quote:

My 'point' is that there is no credit to be taken from accepting the surrender of a beaten enemy apart from that of being a component of the winning side. Ultimately it is of no consequence exactly who the Germans surrendered to as the war closed - the surrendered to the Allies!


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.

Here:

quote:

I said:

He [Dietrich] surrendered his army to U.S. General George C. Patton on May 8, 1945.



quote:

IronDuke said:

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

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



I have shown that Patton was in Austria on May 7-8, 1945. He was a Four Star General at that time, and was senior commander in AUSTRIA. This does raise doubt as to the officer who should claim credit for Dietrich's surrender. Most historians are mute on this issue.

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

Therefore, those websites that state Dietrich's 6th SS Panzer Army surrendered to General Patton and/or Third Army are correct.

quote:

Hearsay? Presume we're on Dietrich here. Apart from his statement regarding Hitler's supposed 'Terror Order' prior to the 'Bulge there is no corroborating evidence - certainly nothing was passed on. Therefore it's hearsay, not even 'circumstantial evidence'


You STILL don't understand the definition of hearsay.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/27/2004 6:44:53 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 85
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 8:50:06 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

I'm not going to waste my time digging any more dirt on Farago, I've already posted enough and don't need to continuously repeat myself.



Some people only seem to try to score points in a debate without actually taking the time to read some of the books in question for themselves, or in trying to understand some of the issues and details involved.

_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 86
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 9:32:32 PM   
dinsdale


Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 87
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 10:47:53 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/27/2004 8:59:53 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 88
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 11:23:02 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 89
RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich - 8/27/2004 11:48:51 PM   
dinsdale


Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.906