The Malmedy Massacre and the Wereth Eleven

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

Researching the Battle of the Bulge, I came across the two massacres that are the title of this thread. The Malmedy Massacre occurred during the opening phases of the battle. Elements of the US 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion were captured by Kampfgruppe Peiper of the 1st SS Pander Division. Some time thereafter, the POWs were put into an open field for no apparent reason when the German troops opened fire and killed 84 of them. Survivors say that they don't think the order came from Joachim Peiper, as they had been treated almost on the same level as the German troops. A survivor even defended Peiper at his trial after the war.

The Wereth 11 massacre took place in a small village one km from St.Vith, where eleven African-American troops from the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion were killed after surrendering by other elements of the First SS.


I think that this just goes to show that there are different types of people on each side of a war. Peiper, a Eastern Front vet, tried his best to treat the American prisoners well, whereas whoever gave that order to open fire was not. Let all these men rest in peace. They died to keep this world free.

[HunterICX]

You'd also know that Peiper did gave clear instructions before the operation that no quarter should be given, no prisoners taken and no pity shown to the belgian Civilians.

That's an indirect order that allowed these massacres to happen and as a commander you'll be held responsible for the behaviour of your troops so such instructions aren't wise to give.

[Jimbuna]

Peiper was indeed found guilty and sentenced to death but that was later commuted to 'time served' as a result of his claims that evidence against him was obtained via means of torture.

He was eventually released from prison after having served 11 1/2 years...a lot luckier than some other war criminals.

His past eventually caught up with him during the night from 13 July to 14 July 1976 when his home was attacked. Peiper was shot several times and his house was set on fire. In the ruin, Peiper's charred corpse was found with a .22 caliber rifle and a pistol, and with a bullet wound in the chest. The perpetrators were never identified, but were suspected to be either Communists or former members of the French Resistance. Peiper had just started writing a book about Malmedy and what followed.

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

I'm didn't take that into account. I just know that the prisoners were well treated until that time. It is a very disconcerting event though, just to know that so many were killed due to orders that eventually came from Hitler, although thinking about it, it IS Hitler we''re talking about.

See also: Armband order: SS defiance of a direct order from Hitler.

[Penguin]

Survivors say that they don't think the order came from Joachim Peiper, as they had been treated almost on the same level as the German troops. A survivor even defended Peiper at his trial after the war.


LOL- Was? As you did some research you can certainly tell the names of the survivors, their rank and in which of the trials regarding Malmedy these statements were made.


I think that this just goes to show that there are different types of people on each side of a war. Peiper, a Eastern Front vet, tried his best to treat the American prisoners well, whereas whoever gave that order to open fire was not. Let all these men rest in peace. They died to keep this world free.
What is this even supposed to mean? What exactly was this freedom that Peiper fought for? I'm really curious - as there are many better examples than Peiper's division when you want to make a blanket statement about war.


The perpetrators were never identified, but were suspected to be either Communists or former members of the French Resistance.

There was an interesting article in L'Express from July 1976 called "L'énigme Peiper" Some journalists who were familiar with the region speculated that the perps where either 1.former Résistance, 2. an Italian commando taking revenge for the things which happened in '43, 3. an organization which hunts down former war criminals in France and Belgium.
Personally I think most circumstances of the deed point to number one - at least in a supporting role.

[Jimbuna]

Such is war unfortunately.

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

When I said freedom, I meant the one that the US troops fought for. I suppose it could be said that Peiper was fighting for his idea of freedom, if that's what it was. Remember, we see it this way because our countries won the war, and , as Modern Warfare 2 stated, 'History is written by the victor.'

[Penguin]

1. Most soldiers fought because they were told to do so. The oath the German soldiers took never mentions the word freedom - just as it neither mentions Germany nor fatherland.

2. History is written by the folks who write history books. If we would allow people from nations which never lost a war to do so, all history books would be printed in Switzerland :). Good historians avoid any bias, source bias is something different. Btw: a similar quote is also attributed to Peiper - and no, a video game is not a relevant source.

3. Still waiting for a source to prove the statement that survivors of the Crossroads incident defended Peiper. In the documents of the Dachau trial, the names of the defense witnesses and their testimonies are mentioned, also in the Senate subcommittee hearing. So I'll ask again:
tell the names of the survivors, their rank and in which of the trials regarding Malmedy these statements were made.
I haven't seen anything to back up the claims of th OP.

[Catfish]

Such is war unfortunately.

Yes it is. Taking prisoners is always a risky business in a fighting zone, you do not know what they are up to, you have to guard them day and night, you cannot afford to lose some of your men guiding prisoners back behind the frontier, to POW camps. So it happens they get killed "because of the circumstances", now and then.

Said b.t.w. an english colonel, about WW2. What happened in Malmedy was not an isolated war crime, nor was it limited to german troops. I also heard from him such things happened in Burma, a bit later.

If you take partisan action into consideration i wonder what our western troops would do nowadays, e.g. in Afghanistan.

Another thing is what they cynically call "collateral damage", straight from some hundred years before christ, to the modern drone "wars". "Freedom", oh well.

[Jimbuna]

I haven't seen anything to back up the claims of th OP.

Rgr that.

[Bilge_Rat]

Yes it is. Taking prisoners is always a risky business in a fighting zone, you do not know what they are up to, you have to guard them day and night, you cannot afford to lose some of your men guiding prisoners back behind the frontier, to POW camps. So it happens they get killed "because of the circumstances", now and then.



yes, reminds me of the Compton incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacre

What is not mentioned in the article is that Compton was later killed on nov. 8th by Germans who were pretending to surrender.

Killing prisoners in the "heat of the action" or immediately afterwards is easier to understand.

more modern example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021703382.html

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/alexandia_the_military_securit.html

what would any of us do if in Don Ayala's position?

However, these types of cold blooded massacres cannot really be excused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Acqui_Division