Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
88 year old Nazi soldier charged over 1944 massacre.
Options
Comments
-
Agreed.
Frankly, I would be particularly skeptical of anything like this, especially from some nameless source:
'Blowlamp Battalion: They went out with Blowlamps and machine guns: they shot the civilians and set fire to the houses with their blowlamps. A large Blowlamp is painted on their vehicles. It has become a sort of badge and has become associated with bloody crimes'
Eh... that is not a namless source, the man is named - Shultz- the document is named and I have a copy of it......0 -
I would imagine Blowtorches would be used across a whole range of units, its a fairly common tool.
I mean was there a Spoon Battalion? I can't imagine that normal use of a Blowtorch would lead to a nickname. That doesn't make a lot of sense either. Not impossible, but unlikely.0 -
Ah, I thought you meant he was a Schütze as in a Waffen SS rank.
Either way, men say a great many things when captured by their enemies. I still find the content of what the man said rather dubious.
Besides, there are many different interpretations of Pieper's lötlampe Abteilung.
I've even heard that they were supposed to have modified blowtorches into flamethrowers etc.0 -
Peipers Blow torch btln were notorious, they painted blowtorches on their vehicles as a 'badge of honour', they were suspected of the burning of many villages on the Eastern Front near Kharkov.
The testimonies of the POWs who all served in the same division as Peiper puts this fact in little doubt, both of these guys gave this evidence before Peiper came to the western Allies attention, he and his men were put on trial post war for the murder of American POWs at Malmedy during the 'Battle of the Bulge', he was sentenced to death, but this was commuted. This event and trial are what capitulated Peiper into infamy, but his alleged war crimes on the Eastern Front were never fully investigated and of course he never stood trial for them as relations deteriorated between the east and west post war.
He was murdered in France in 1976, the culprits were never caught, but it was thought to be the work of French communists. He also served as Himmler's adjutant in the early years of the war.0 -
Ah, I thought you meant he was a Schütze as in a Waffen SS rank.
Either way, men say a great many things when captured by their enemies. I still find the content of what the man said rather dubious.
Besides, there are many different interpretations of Pieper's lötlampe Abteilung.
I've even heard that they were supposed to have modified blowtorches into flamethrowers etc.
You hear a lot, but believe very little...... two independent reports, one story.. and a possible third, and they are just testimonies that I have uncovered in relation to another 'personalities' crime, there's more out there. Jacob Hanreich's evidence against the LSAH was extensive and much of it has been corroborated.......including Peiper's actions at Boves.0 -
Advertisement
-
I never said that they did, but the reprisal ratio certainly wasn't within he realm of the Germans only.
My point is that the Allies were just as willing to carry out extreme reprisals, just like the Germans were.
Besides, one needs to distinguish between "Allies". If we're talking about the Russian "Allies" here, then their action against merely suspected Werwolf members could be considered a rival of Adreatine.
My point was that the authorised summary execution of innocent civilians as a reprisal for acts committed against did not feature in the Allied occupation of Germany.
Apologies for earlier - IHR is the International History Review, who pursue the idea that the Allied occupation of Germany was as bad as the German occupation of various other countries - or, if you want to look at it another way, German occupying forces were as benign as Allied ones in Germany.
To my mind, the two don't equate.
Germany surrendered and was occupied in May 1945 - three years later the Marshall Plan followed. Germany occupied countries and plundered them for their labour and raw materials - there was no 'Speer Plan' for France, at least not a constructive one.
Civil Affairs Officers also feature prominently in the immediate aftermath of territory being retaken by the British and US and their approach to re-establishing normal government and functioning economies contrasted markedly with the Germans.
I've read some of Alexander's papers (from his Army Group HQ during the Italian Campaign) and he was very energetic in getting some normalcy restored and constantly chasing his staff to get local markets re-established, services restored and food into occupied areas.
Yes, there may have been an element of pragmatism about it, but if you contrast Alex's approach to Kesselring - I know which zone I'd rather have been in.
.....and I don't pretend that Allied occupation was all sunshine and lollipops - crimes, racketeering etc all occured, and some of it on an industrial scale, but the overall thrust of their activities was based around the idea of reconstruction not subjugation.0 -
boomchicawawa wrote: »Peipers Blow torch btln were notorious, they painted blowtorches on their vehicles as a 'badge of honour', they were suspected of the burning of many villages on the Eastern Front near Kharkov.
The testimonies of the POWs who all served in the same division as Peiper puts this fact in little doubt, both of these guys gave this evidence before Peiper came to the western Allies attention, he and his men were put on trial post war for the murder of American POWs at Malmedy during the 'Battle of the Bulge', he was sentenced to death, but this was commuted. This event and trial are what capitulated Peiper into infamy, but his alleged war crimes on the Eastern Front were never fully investigated and of course he never stood trial for them as relations deteriorated between the east and west post war.
He was murdered in France in 1976, the culprits were never caught, but it was thought to be the work of French communists. He also served as Himmler's adjutant in the early years of the war.
I can assure you I am very well versed in Joachim Piper's history.
And "suspected" and fact are often strangers.0 -
boomchicawawa wrote: »You hear a lot, but believe very little...... two independent reports, one story.. and a possible third, and they are just testimonies that I have uncovered in relation to another 'personalities' crime, there's more out there. Jacob Hanreich's evidence against the LSAH was extensive and much of it has been corroborated.......including Peiper's actions at Boves.
Sure, there are endless accusations floating around about German soldiers alleged actions during the Second World War. There are entire volumes devoted to mere accusation, as well as factual accounts.
As far as Boves is concerned, there has never been anything concrete levelled against Pieper or his men, there has only been allegations of misconduct. An Italian court even dismissed the case in the 60's because of lack of evidence. A German court tried to prosecute later and couldn't because of the same lack of proof.
You see, allegation is simply not enough. You need proof and fact.0 -
My point was that the authorised summary execution of innocent civilians as a reprisal for acts committed against did not feature in the Allied occupation of Germany.
As far as I'm aware, "civilians" didn't come into it at first. The decree, which was actually suggested to Hitler by Kurt Mälzer, just mentioned reprisals for partisan actions. So, the eventual authorisation may have come from from Berlin, but the idea originated from Italy, somewhat hotheadedly imo, as it actually led to unnecessary headache for the Germans. The original idea was to execute prisoners who were already sentenced to death. This was impossible as there weren't enough people in German custody, so the numbers were bulked out with other prisoners and eventually civilians, including 50 odd Jews.
Either way, it's definitely a war crime, by anybody's reckoning.
Again though, MY point is that the Allied occupation would never have reached such reprisal proportions because there was no real partisan resistance offered to them. So, it's impossible to make any real comparison. The Allied occupation never once faced the situation that the Germans faced. German occupation of territory, in a lot of the areas they had to occupy during the war was fraught with danger and the threat by an unseen enemy was a hugely terrifying one.
Put another way, if Italian partisans hadn't killed 32 people on Via Rasella, there wouldn't have been reprisals carried out at Ardeatine.Germany surrendered and was occupied in May 1945 - three years later the Marshall Plan followed. Germany occupied countries and plundered them for their labour and raw materials - there was no 'Speer Plan' for France, at least not a constructive one.
The Marshall plan ONLY followed because the Morganthau plan would prove detrimental to Allied ambitions in Europe. The western Allies were not being altruistic, they were being practical. In the next European conflict, Germany was to be a bulwark against Soviet aggression and a Germany that was cripple by the Morganthau plan would have been a very bad idea for everyone concerned.
Also, there was plenty of plunder going on in occupied Germany too, especially in the East.0 -
As far as I'm aware, "civilians" didn't come into it at first. The decree, which was actually suggested to Hitler by Kurt Mälzer, just mentioned reprisals for partisan actions. So, the eventual authorisation may have come from from Berlin, but the idea originated from Italy, somewhat hotheadedly imo, as it actually led to unnecessary headache for the Germans. The original idea was to execute prisoners who were already sentenced to death. This was impossible as there weren't enough people in German custody, so the numbers were bulked out with other prisoners and eventually civilians, including 50 odd Jews.
Either way, it's definitely a war crime, by anybody's reckoning.
Again though, MY point is that the Allied occupation would never have reached such reprisal proportions because there was no real partisan resistance offered to them. So, it's impossible to make any real comparison. The Allied occupation never once faced the situation that the Germans faced. German occupation of territory, in a lot of the areas they had to occupy during the war was fraught with danger and the threat by an unseen enemy was a hugely terrifying one.
Put another way, if Italian partisans hadn't killed 32 people on Via Rasella, there wouldn't have been reprisals carried out at Ardeatine.
I referenced the decision-making process in an earlier post in this thread.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to bring 'hotheadedness' into this - the discussion / proposal went through several HQs both up then down the chain of command - it was endorsed, not merely passed on, but endorsed by OB Sud - and given the differences in the German staff system compared to the British or American staff system, that is not insignificant - the principle of the 'prince speaks for the king' applies in the German system.
...and to put it another way, if Germany had decided not to occupy Italy, then there wouldn't have been a company of SS Policemen on the via Rasella in the first place.The Marshall plan ONLY followed because the Morganthau plan would prove detrimental to Allied ambitions in Europe. The western Allies were not being altruistic, they were being practical. In the next European conflict, Germany was to be a bulwark against Soviet aggression and a Germany that was cripple by the Morganthau plan would have been a very bad idea for everyone concerned.
Also, there was plenty of plunder going on in occupied Germany too, especially in the East.
Yes, the Allies were being practical as I alluded to in my point about their approach to Civil Affairs, but the fact remains that while the Allies did plunder technology, know-how etc to boost their own defence or war-making prospects they eventually, by whatever means, came up with the Marshall Plan.
Compare Germany three years after the Allied occupation began with France three years after the German occupation and I think you'll have an idea as to which was the more benign.
Plus the application of the Marsahall Plan brought with it ideas of liberalised trade (as opposed to the British who wanted to nationalise everything) and currency reform, which while harsh on savers was also harsh on creditors but promoted economic activity.
As I said, for all its flaws the Marshall Plan and the Allied occupation was constructive in nature and as such bears no comparison to any occupation involving the Germans during the War.0 -
Advertisement
-
There was no real partisan resistance Allied occupation because (I assume) the native population considered it "liberation" not occupation. There wasn't the oppression that characterized the German occupation.0
-
I think it's a bit of a stretch to bring 'hotheadedness' into this
I mean hotheadedness on behalf of Kurt Mälzer, who originally suggested the idea. I doubt he had in mind the actual path the series of events were going to eventually take and what a thorn it would become....and to put it another way, if Germany had decided not to occupy Italy, then there wouldn't have been a company of SS Policemen on the via Rasella in the first place.
And what were the Germans to do? The ally had surrendered, an enemy was on the doorstep. It would have been foolish of them not to have occupied the areas they did. They couldn't have simply pulled out of Italy and hoped for the best.Yes, the Allies were being practical as I alluded to in my point about their approach to Civil Affairs, but the fact remains that while the Allies did plunder technology, know-how etc to boost their own defence or war-making prospects they eventually, by whatever means, came up with the Marshall Plan.
But only after the Morganthau plan proved to be detrimental to their long term affairs in Europe. That's the salient point. They needed a strong Germany to put against Russia, who had reverted back to "enemy" status. Things may have been very different had that parameter not existed.Compare Germany three years after the Allied occupation began with France three years after the German occupation and I think you'll have an idea as to which was the more benign.
But, that's my point. You can't compare them, because the Allies didn't face the same stresses that the Germans did. For a start there was a full scale war going on and German forces were stretched to the limit. Even so, for the first few years of French occupation, it was relatively easy going. Compared to German rule in Poland, France has extremely easy.As I said, for all its flaws the Marshall Plan and the Allied occupation was constructive in nature and as such bears no comparison to any occupation involving the Germans during the War.
But only out of necessity. Again, if the threat of the Soviet Union in the East was non-existent, the western allied occupation may have had a very different face indeed.
It wasn't the original idea.
And for the last, it's impossible to compare the occupation by the separate powers in any way fairly. The allies in 1945 just did not face the same conditions that the Germans faced during the war.0 -
There was no real partisan resistance Allied occupation because (I assume) the native population considered it "liberation" not occupation. There wasn't the oppression that characterized the German occupation.
No, there was no real partisan activity because the Germans were sick of war and the nazis by 1945 and into the bargain the country was an absolute shambles. Even if there was a significant amount of people behind the notion of Werwolf, there simply wasn't the resources to put much into effect and a large proportion of fighting men were already in their graves.
It had nothing to do with "liberation". Most Germans were just glad the war was over.
I'm sure the Germans in the east, under Russian rule felt very "liberated" indeed.0 -
I mean hotheadedness on behalf of Kurt Mälzer, who originally suggested the idea. I doubt he had in mind the actual path the series of events were going to eventually take and what a thorn it would become.
And what were the Germans to do? The ally had surrendered, an enemy was on the doorstep. It would have been foolish of them not to have occupied the areas they did. They couldn't have simply pulled out of Italy and hoped for the best.
But only after the Morganthau plan proved to be detrimental to their long term affairs in Europe. That's the salient point. They needed a strong Germany to put against Russia, who had reverted back to "enemy" status. Things may have been very different had that parameter not existed.
But, that's my point. You can't compare them, because the Allies didn't face the same stresses that the Germans did. For a start there was a full scale war going on and German forces were stretched to the limit. Even so, for the first few years of French occupation, it was relatively easy going. Compared to German rule in Poland, France has extremely easy.
But only out of necessity. Again, if the threat of the Soviet Union in the East was non-existent, the western allied occupation may have had a very different face indeed.
It wasn't the original idea.
And for the last, it's impossible to compare the occupation by the separate powers in any way fairly. The allies in 1945 just did not face the same conditions that the Germans faced during the war.
Leaving aside the fact that the Germans are in no way the victims here - they started a war of conquest - so maybe the response to the question what should they have done, is simply not to have initiated the conflict in the first place.
Any stress was self-inflicted.
Maybe the Germans did what was militarily necessary in remaining as far south as possible and establishing the Salo Republic or maybe the didn't- Rommel, for instance advocated a withdrawal to the north with a stand being made on the Pisa - Rimini Line - if they had gone with that plan - then no SS police would have been in the via Rasella.
It was Hitler's inability to give ground and his desire to hold prestige objectives that compelled them to remain so far south......and in this he was facilitated by Kesselring.
Also a large part of what drove the Marshall Plan was a desire not to repeat the mistakes of Versailles. And maybe it wasn't as altruistic as the US portrays it, but it was still an aspect of the occupation that was a move towards reconciliation and while a strong Germany to buffer the west against the Soviets may well have been the self-serving political objective of the plan, then it was a good one given the nearly 70 years of peace that have since prevailed in that part of the world.0 -
Leaving aside the fact that the Germans are in no way the victims here - they started a war of conquest - so maybe the response to the question what should they have done, is simply not to have initiated the conflict in the first place.
Any stress was self-inflicted.
So we're down to "they started it" and "THE Germans" ?
THE Germans didn't ask for war, they were carried along by it as much as anybody else. Hitler and the National Socialists weren't brought to power on a platform of war or elimination of his enemies.
In fact, the Germans greeted the news of war in 1939 with fear and trepidation, not a joyous embrace.Maybe the Germans did what was militarily necessary in remaining as far south as possible and establishing the Salo Republic or maybe the didn't- Rommel, for instance advocated a withdrawal to the north with a stand being made on the Pisa - Rimini Line - if they had gone with that plan - then no SS police would have been in the via Rasella.
There's maybe about. In war you occupy territory. The main being it denies your enemy the chance to do the same. It's simply rule #1 of modern warfare.
You only give up land when it's absolutely no longer tenable to keep hold of it.
In addition to this Ardeatine discussion and who should or shouldn't have been in a given area...taking for granted that the Germans were garrisoned there, what were these partisans hoping to achieve by killing them, not to mention the few innocent civilians too (including a you boy). The Germans had made it very clear that they had a policy of reprisals in other occupied countries, so what was the point of their attack? Was to provoke the Germans, which undoubtedly such an attack would do? or was it to deal a huge blow to the them, which such an attack would do.
We know that the German reprisal is a war crime, by any standards, but do the partisans bear any responsibility for putting Italians in danger by their, quite frankly, stupid action.Also a large part of what drove the Marshall Plan was a desire not to repeat the mistakes of Versailles. And maybe it wasn't as altruistic as the US portrays it, but it was still an aspect of the occupation that was a move towards reconciliation and while a strong Germany to buffer the west against the Soviets may well have been the self-serving political objective of the plan, then it was a good one given the nearly 70 years of peace that have since prevailed in that part of the world.
But it still had nothing to do with being "good" occupiers and everything to do with Russia. Take Russia out of the equation and you have Morganthau and a very different 70 years.
BTW, 70 years, with nearly 50 years of a Cold War is not really the same as actual peace.0 -
No, there was no real partisan activity because the Germans were sick of war and the nazis by 1945 and into the bargain the country was an absolute shambles. Even if there was a significant amount of people behind the notion of Werwolf, there simply wasn't the resources to put much into effect and a large proportion of fighting men were already in their graves.
It had nothing to do with "liberation". Most Germans were just glad the war was over.
I'm sure the Germans in the east, under Russian rule felt very "liberated" indeed.
Theres no way you can equate German invasion and occupation, with that of the Allies, especially not in the western Europe. You have to look beyond Germany itself.
In the East the Soviet occupation bears some comparison, Stalin certainly was Tyrannical Dictator, even of his own people. . But even there you can't ignore that the catalyst for this a reaction to German invasion and occupation. You can't excuse it, but you can see the cause and effect.0 -
-
-
I think your argument is some form of reverse logic of "what did the romans ever do for us"
http://ancientimes.blogspot.ie/2011/02/gallic-wars-genocide-or-stepping-stone.html0 -
I can't see how anyone could come to that conclusion.0
-
Advertisement
-
So we're down to "they started it" and "THE Germans" ?
THE Germans didn't ask for war, they were carried along by it as much as anybody else. Hitler and the National Socialists weren't brought to power on a platform of war or elimination of his enemies.
In fact, the Germans greeted the news of war in 1939 with fear and trepidation, not a joyous embrace.
Yes, they did start it - that's pretty much a given. And the idea that it was mostly 'good' Germans dragged down by a few bad ones is something that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.There's maybe about. In war you occupy territory. The main being it denies your enemy the chance to do the same. It's simply rule #1 of modern warfare.
You only give up land when it's absolutely no longer tenable to keep hold of it.
Sorry, but that is not right - the German doctrine always emphasised movement, defence in depth, turning manoeuvers, strategic envelopment - it was very dynamic and their training never emphasised holding ground for the sake of holding ground.
Even at the lower levels there was an emphasis on defence by counter-attack, in other words yielding the ground to the attacker then immediately counter punching.In addition to this Ardeatine discussion and who should or shouldn't have been in a given area...taking for granted that the Germans were garrisoned there, what were these partisans hoping to achieve by killing them, not to mention the few innocent civilians too (including a you boy). The Germans had made it very clear that they had a policy of reprisals in other occupied countries, so what was the point of their attack? Was to provoke the Germans, which undoubtedly such an attack would do? or was it to deal a huge blow to the them, which such an attack would do.
We know that the German reprisal is a war crime, by any standards, but do the partisans bear any responsibility for putting Italians in danger by their, quite frankly, stupid action.
The Germans weren't 'garrisoned' there - they were an illegitimate occupying force (post-Italy's surrender) supporting a totalitarian regime and to suggest that a population doesn't have a right to assert itself and actively resist is a bit ridiculous.
What should the Italians have done? rolled over and acquiesced - let the forced deportations of conscripted labour continue, allow the continued arrest, detention and torture of their fellow citizens to continue, accept that they had to continue in war they wanted out of?But it still had nothing to do with being "good" occupiers and everything to do with Russia. Take Russia out of the equation and you have Morganthau and a very different 70 years.
BTW, 70 years, with nearly 50 years of a Cold War is not really the same as actual peace.
No you still have Marshall - Versailles almost became the Keynes Plan, but was undermined by the French. The one thing the US & British seemed intent on doing was avoiding a repeat of Versailles, that means Marshall.
By the way, I said.....70 years of peace that have since prevailed in that part of the world.
Not 70 years of peace. Given the area in question had been ravaged by significant wars for the last 1000 years or so, those 70 years of peace (even if there was a Cold War) are pretty exceptional.0 -
Yes, they did start it - that's pretty much a given. And the idea that it was mostly 'good' Germans dragged down by a few bad ones is something that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
That would depend on your approach in the scrutinySorry, but that is not right - the German doctrine always emphasised movement, defence in depth, turning manoeuvers, strategic envelopment - it was very dynamic and their training never emphasised holding ground for the sake of holding ground.
That's only the efforts to take the ground. once you've taken it you hold it.
That's basic warfare...even for the Germans.
You're confusing a Tactical doctrine with Strategic goals. Once the Schwerpunkt/Blitzkrieg element has achieved it's result, you keep hold of what you've got to deny the enemy.The Germans weren't 'garrisoned' there - they were an illegitimate occupying force (post-Italy's surrender) supporting a totalitarian regime and to suggest that a population doesn't have a right to assert itself and actively resist is a bit ridiculous.
What should the Italians have done? rolled over and acquiesced - let the forced deportations of conscripted labour continue, allow the continued arrest, detention and torture of their fellow citizens to continue, accept that they had to continue in war they wanted out of?
You're splitting hairs. It doesn't matter whether they were garrisoned, occupying or on holiday. The fact is that the actions of the partisans were ill thought out, to say the very least, given the fact that the Germans had carried out strong reprisals against similar situations.
Also, let's not forget, the Italians themselves were well versed in such operations as well.
Anyway, who said that the "population" were behind such partisan activity? The disparate partisans bands didn't ask for their opinion and in any case were often fighting for their own separate political causes. I'd wager that there would quite a considerable number of people who would have rather that the partisans (of whatever colour) had chosen a different course of action.
In the end, what did it achieve?0 -
I can assure you I am very well versed in Joachim Piper's history.
And "suspected" and fact are often strangers.
I say 'suspected' merely because he was never put on trial for any crimes committed on the Eastern Front as you should well know if you are so versed in Peipers bio. Personally I wonder how you can defend him if you know so much about him, the fact that you challenged the assertion in the first place puts a question over your objectivity. If you had posted 'this is one version, but I have another' it would not have raised any eyebrows. Have you absolutely no doubt at all ??? That's what I find questionable.
Sure he was highly decorated, beloved by his men, somewhat fitted up for Malmedy, daring-do in battle, I even know someone who wouldn't be here only Peiper rescued his grandfather from certain death on the Eastern Front.
But when you see this story told, if you are objective, you have to ask....what's the truth behind it? I haven't read Westermeire or Agte's bio's because I'm led to believe they are heavily weighted, but when I see these testimonies of men who served with him....it raises a red flag to me..
Jacob Hanreich was in the LSAH from 1933, and was a SturmbannFuhrer...he commanded the Anti Tank Btln in the 12th HJ having transferred from the LSAH, he is no lightweight....his testimony cannot be ignored, and just because Peiper wasn't sent to Russia to face trial does not mean he is clean as a whistle....You know he served his time in prison for Malmady and the Western Allies had no inclination to send men to face trial in Russia in the 1950s, so the bull that he's only suspected and therefore probably innocent does not stand up IMO.
The three docs I have are all from different sources. The first (Shultz) is from a tapping file, it was not an interrogation, he was overheard talking and was recorded, the part I posted was only a very small section of a very interesting story. The second one posted is Hanreich's again its a very small section of lengthy evidence against the LSAH for war crimes from Poland 39 to Italy. Hanreich was telling the same story one year later in a second interrogation, he appears quite happy to spill the beans on this comrades. The third doc is much more suspect and honestly, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny for many reasons, but its intriguing that it contains Peipers name and the 'blow torch' reference again, but I wouldn't be happy to offer that as a historical accuracy in this case for many reasons that are not relevant to this discussion.
We'll agree to differ for the moment, but Parker's book should seal the deal...although I think the first volume due in December is about the latter years of Peipers life...0 -
That would depend on your approach in the scrutiny
That's only the efforts to take the ground. once you've taken it you hold it.
That's basic warfare...even for the Germans.
You're confusing a Tactical doctrine with Strategic goals. Once the Schwerpunkt/Blitzkrieg element has achieved it's result, you keep hold of what you've got to deny the enemy.
Sorry, but it wasn't. Quite often what they would do is allow a position to be taken, then immediately bring pre-registered artillery fire down on the hill, town or whatever it was then move to re-take it.
Or attack as a prelude to a withdrawal to inflict confusion on the enemy opposite while they conducted a managed re-positioning.
Or pull back and when an enemy moved to pursue immediately hit them with a flank attack
Even George "I-don't-like-to-pay-for-the-same-real-estate-twice" Patton was a manoeuverist.
You don't hold ground at all costs - that was never the German way. Even during the Great War they tried to generate a war of movement.You're splitting hairs. It doesn't matter whether they were garrisoned, occupying or on holiday. The fact is that the actions of the partisans were ill thought out, to say the very least, given the fact that the Germans had carried out strong reprisals against similar situations.
Also, let's not forget, the Italians themselves were well versed in such operations as well.
Anyway, who said that the "population" were behind such partisan activity? The disparate partisans bands didn't ask for their opinion and in any case were often fighting for their own separate political causes. I'd wager that there would quite a considerable number of people who would have rather that the partisans (of whatever colour) had chosen a different course of action.
In the end, what did it achieve?
So the reprisals should have compelled the partisans to inactivity? You seem to be suggesting that the whole sorry affairs was the partisans' fault? Is that not a bit like suggesting the people killed on Bloody Sunday in Derry were at fault for getting in the way of the bullets?
Maybe the general population did not support the partisans, but I'd be willing to be bet they were against the Germans....
what did it achieve - well it gave them a sense of national pride, a sense of nationhood and a sense that at least the did something to stand up the the bullies, I guess.0 -
-
Does it not tie up resources?
It also compelled them to tie up divisions in rear area security.
I think the estimate was 10 German divisions (admittedly second / third rate) had to be deployed in NW Italy to secure transport and industrial production sites - in addition to locally raised police battalions.0 -
boomchicawawa wrote: »I say 'suspected' merely because he was never put on trial for any crimes committed on the Eastern Front as you should well know if you are so versed in Peipers bio. Personally I wonder how you can defend him if you know so much about him,
Who said I was "defending" him?
By the way, it should be alleged crimes. With proof, evidence or conviction, all we are left with is an allegation.boomchicawawa wrote: »the fact that you challenged the assertion in the first place puts a question over your objectivity.
Really? I would consider challenging an allegation of committing a crime as being objective. A mere allegation not enough to draw a conclusion of guilt.boomchicawawa wrote: »Sure he was highly decorated, beloved by his men, somewhat fitted up for Malmedy, daring-do in battle, I even know someone who wouldn't be here only Peiper rescued his grandfather from certain death on the Eastern Front.
Joachim Peiper's name has been dragged through SO much mud that, yes, I remain skeptical about allegations regarding him. That's not defending him, per se, as wanting to see more solid evidence regarding the allegations against him.
Anyone can make an allegation against anyone, It doesn't mean anything, unless there is evidence to prove the allegation.
In the cases against Peiper we mostly just have allegations against him and in the case of Malmedy, an attempt at "fitting up" as you say.boomchicawawa wrote: »But when you see this story told, if you are objective, you have to ask....what's the truth behind it?
I would ask what are the facts.
The problem with "truth" is that everyone has their own different version of it. One person's "truth" is not the same as another.
But facts are just facts. They're nothing else.
Look, I'm not saying that Peiper was an angel or some sort of innocent abroad. But because of the attempts at the Malmedy trial to desperately try an pin something on him, it has peaked my skepticism regarding his other "atrocities". The second major count against him, Boves, is also shrouded in a sheer lack of solid facts, which is another question mark.
The alleged crimes in Russia are even more obscure.
But, there definitely is a cloud over Peiper, one can't ignore that.
As I've already said, the "truth" probably lies somewhere in the middle, as quite often it does. The "blowtorch" thing is a prime example of what I am talking about. Considering the different accounts of what the moniker is supposed to mean and from what it originated from, it's very difficult for any objective person to come to a absolute conclusion. It's possible that it meant many things to many different people. Sometimes nicknames take on a life of their own.
I haven't read Agte's bio either and at over 100 quid on Amazon, I won't be either.0 -
No.
They were called the "Blowtorch Battalion" because they had to use blowtorches to heat the oil in the StuGs during the Russian winters.
Here's where you are saying that there was an 'innocent' explanation for the Blow torch btln tag....which is used as a defence by some when the other version is told...ie the blow torch was on the vehicles as a badge of honour to signify that they torched Russian houses0 -
I have no intention of levelling allegations without any substance, but you have to be objective...you have to stand back...and if you believe he was being maligned without substance before, use that same judgement when you are given evidence. What I have posted is not as far as I know in any book, i just happened to come across it while searching for something else...I'm not quoting someone else's assertions, someone who may have an axe to grind with the WSS or Peiper....
personally, I'm only interested in finding out the truth, but when it stares me in the face, I can't ignore it....some will say...**** happened on the Eastern front and shrug their shoulders...its up to the individual to make their own call....0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry, but it wasn't. Quite often what they would do is allow a position to be taken, then immediately bring pre-registered artillery fire down on the hill, town or whatever it was then move to re-take it.
Or attack as a prelude to a withdrawal to inflict confusion on the enemy opposite while they conducted a managed re-positioning.
Or pull back and when an enemy moved to pursue immediately hit them with a flank attack
Even George "I-don't-like-to-pay-for-the-same-real-estate-twice" Patton was a manoeuverist.
You don't hold ground at all costs - that was never the German way. Even during the Great War they tried to generate a war of movement.
You're missing the point.
All of your above issues are tactical situations. They don't apply to occupying a country.So the reprisals should have compelled the partisans to inactivity? You seem to be suggesting that the whole sorry affairs was the partisans' fault? Is that not a bit like suggesting the people killed on Bloody Sunday in Derry were at fault for getting in the way of the bullets?
Again, you're aren't comparing like for like. The people killed on Bloody Sunday were shot while marching peacefully.
The Partisan killings resulted in the Germans taking reprisals in exchange for very little.
It's not the same thing at all.
If you're looking for a Northern Ireland analogy, then perhaps the British stitching up the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four in (a kind of reprisal) for IRA activity might suit. But even then, it's not quite the same.Maybe the general population did not support the partisans, but I'd be willing to be bet they were against the Germans....
Some were no doubt, some weren't. But I'd certainly wager that the majority weren't on the same political spectrum as the partisan groups were, which by and large had a left wing, socialist outlook. Italy was still very much a conservative Catholic country as a whole and certainly wouldn't have had much truck with that political idealism. They especially wouldn't have been "on side" with the Communist elements of resistance to any large degree.what did it achieve - well it gave them a sense of national pride, a sense of nationhood and a sense that at least the did something to stand up the the bullies, I guess.
Except, it didn't. It imply resulted in the unnecessary death of hundreds of people.0
Advertisement