Just watched "Saints and Soldiers" last night and this movie had a different take on the Malmady Massacre. The way this movie portraied it was that it all started with a US soldier shot while trying to escape. Then some other POWs attacked a gaurd and took his gun. This caused the Germans to shoot at the prisoners. Now I am not an expert but have read a few histories on the Battle of the Bulge, I have never read of this account of the massacre. Is this maybe a German account or just the movie industry really screwing up history?
Eric
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Malmady Massacre question?
M4Nut
Member Since: March 22, 2002
entire network: 148 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2006 - 08:26 AM UTC
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2006 - 09:04 AM UTC
I really don't know. I've not read this version of what happened. I imagine that each side, the Amricans and the Germans, might view the action differntly.
Saints and Soldiers wasn't done by a typical movie company so they may have had their own reasons for doing it the way they did.
Saints and Soldiers wasn't done by a typical movie company so they may have had their own reasons for doing it the way they did.
Drader
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2006 - 01:19 PM UTC
Two groups of very tired, jittery men come together in a frozen field in the middle of a very large battle. Only one group has guns. Shooting starts - inevitably every single surviving participant has a different and partial memory of what happened. Fog of war descends.
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2006 - 02:00 PM UTC
It would be a less bitter pill to swallow if this were indeed the case. An event that got out of hand, but I keep in mind the "no prisioner mentality" This was a fast moving attack force that had neither the time nor the man power to deal with POW's. I still am of the mindset that this was a deliberate act.
thathaway3
Member Since: September 10, 2004
entire network: 1,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 265 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:46 PM UTC
I'm with Steve on this one, and will go a bit further. EVERY prisoner of war is obligated to attempt to escape. This is recognized in the Geneva Conventions. The capturing power is obligated to protect the prisoners. Also part of the Geneva Conventions. Whatever events may have led to the incident are irrelevant. ALL of the prisoners were killed, and under the Conventions THAT is a war crime.
"Shot while trying to escape" just doesn't fly.
Tom
"Shot while trying to escape" just doesn't fly.
Tom
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 13, 2006 - 11:01 PM UTC
Quoted Text
but I keep in mind the "no prisioner mentality" This was a fast moving attack force that had neither the time nor the man power to deal with POW's.
Well, many fast moving attack forces have had time to take prisoners. During the German drive to the channel many prisoners were taken. Same again with the modern day US/Coalition attacks into Kuwait and Iraq. Even if an escort couldn't be spared, POWs could be just pointed to the rear.
Malmedy was more a manifestation of the SS mindset than a necessity of war.
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Malmedy was more a manifestation of the SS mindset than a necessity of war
Not to excuse the SS in any way shape or form but wasn't there a Hitler directive for the attack to take place in a particulary aggressive and demoralizing manner? I don't have the details at hand but I'm sure they can be found online.
Now it seems only the SS, and possibly only in the Malmedy area, took this to heart and adopted the "no prisioners" attitude so they are certainly not blameless.
Uruk-Hai
Member Since: January 31, 2003
entire network: 795 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:42 AM UTC
Actually the Malmedy Massacre is much more complicated than many poster might believe.
Im not defending Waffen-SS. They have more than their fair share of warcrimes to answer for.
I do however think that what took place at Malmedy was an flight attemp from those prisoner in the back of the field that was close to the forest. When that started germans started shooting panically.
Of the about 150 men more than half survived if Im not mistaken. For those interested in this incident there are much availble on the web, books and history forums.
Im not defending Waffen-SS. They have more than their fair share of warcrimes to answer for.
I do however think that what took place at Malmedy was an flight attemp from those prisoner in the back of the field that was close to the forest. When that started germans started shooting panically.
Of the about 150 men more than half survived if Im not mistaken. For those interested in this incident there are much availble on the web, books and history forums.
Hohenstaufen
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 02:45 AM UTC
I believe I'm right in saying that the Malmedy Massacre began with an East European volunteer called Fleps (or something like this) taking a pot shot at a prisoner from a tank with his pistol as he drove past. This one shot caused the other SS guards to panic & start shooting into the mass of prisoners. Some American officers tried to restore order, but as they were shot down, the remaining prisoners broke & attempted to flee. There were only three survivors I believe (all wounded).
It would not really be correct, if these were the circumstances, to call it a pre-meditated massacre, that would imply that there was some sort of organised design by a senior officer to implement it. There has never been any evidence found of written German orders to shoot prisoners during the Bulge.
Having said that, this does not justify German actions at Malmedy, nor does the old "shot escaping" chestnut. This was not the first time this excuse was used by SS troops.
I would think the interpretation referred to above would come from a German source, there were frequently attempts to justify war crimes by counter claims. For example, the justification for the massacre of the Royal Norfolks at Wormhoudt in 1940 was that they had been using "dum-dum" ammunition. Even had that been so, summary shooting out of hand was not the course of action suggested by the Geneva Convention.
It would not really be correct, if these were the circumstances, to call it a pre-meditated massacre, that would imply that there was some sort of organised design by a senior officer to implement it. There has never been any evidence found of written German orders to shoot prisoners during the Bulge.
Having said that, this does not justify German actions at Malmedy, nor does the old "shot escaping" chestnut. This was not the first time this excuse was used by SS troops.
I would think the interpretation referred to above would come from a German source, there were frequently attempts to justify war crimes by counter claims. For example, the justification for the massacre of the Royal Norfolks at Wormhoudt in 1940 was that they had been using "dum-dum" ammunition. Even had that been so, summary shooting out of hand was not the course of action suggested by the Geneva Convention.
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 08:26 AM UTC
Here is a pretty decent account of the action that seems to be relatively ballanced.
Malmedy Massacre
I think the following passage is probaly the most correct piece of the article.
"It is unlikely that we shall ever know the precise sequence of events at the Baugnez crossroads, near Malmédy, on December 17, 1944, or the reasons for them. The secret lies with the guilty and the dead. Nevertheless, many corroborated facts are known and a careful analysis of these facts can bring us closer to the truth of what happened"
Malmedy Massacre
I think the following passage is probaly the most correct piece of the article.
"It is unlikely that we shall ever know the precise sequence of events at the Baugnez crossroads, near Malmédy, on December 17, 1944, or the reasons for them. The secret lies with the guilty and the dead. Nevertheless, many corroborated facts are known and a careful analysis of these facts can bring us closer to the truth of what happened"
hellbent11
Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:35 PM UTC
[quote]
I too recall reading something like that but I can't put my finger on where. The way I understand it Hitler ordered that the objectives be captured as soon as possible to use the element of suprise and not allow the Allies to regroup. This included not wasting time and manpower/equipment/supplies on taking POW's. Most of the sources that I've seen claim that it was a direct order from Hitler himself and the field units only "followed orders" of the big guy himself. I too have a hard time beliveing that it was and "accident".
Quoted Text
but wasn't there a Hitler directive for the attack to take place in a particulary aggressive and demoralizing manner?
I too recall reading something like that but I can't put my finger on where. The way I understand it Hitler ordered that the objectives be captured as soon as possible to use the element of suprise and not allow the Allies to regroup. This included not wasting time and manpower/equipment/supplies on taking POW's. Most of the sources that I've seen claim that it was a direct order from Hitler himself and the field units only "followed orders" of the big guy himself. I too have a hard time beliveing that it was and "accident".
tango20
Member Since: August 01, 2004
entire network: 1,281 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 17, 2006 - 05:53 PM UTC
Hi all
I have been following this thread with great interest.
My father who landed on D-Day recalls being told by officers on the landing ship that there would be no taking of prisoners in the initial landings you can read into that what you like.
My father does not talk much about that but he did say once that during the inital landings where were you going to send the pows back to the beach to wander around,further more you depleted you fighting strength every time prisoners were taken to escort them to the rear and all the time waitng for the german counter attack
Just something to think about
Chhers Chris
I have been following this thread with great interest.
My father who landed on D-Day recalls being told by officers on the landing ship that there would be no taking of prisoners in the initial landings you can read into that what you like.
My father does not talk much about that but he did say once that during the inital landings where were you going to send the pows back to the beach to wander around,further more you depleted you fighting strength every time prisoners were taken to escort them to the rear and all the time waitng for the german counter attack
Just something to think about
Chhers Chris
Drader
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 01:59 PM UTC
Quoted Text
My father who landed on D-Day recalls being told by officers on the landing ship that there would be no taking of prisoners in the initial landings you can read into that what you like.
IIRC similarly ambiguous orders were given at the start of the Somme offensive in 1916. With much the same result, even more confusion for men entering combat for the first time.
DutchBird
#068
Member Since: April 09, 2003
entire network: 1,144 Posts
KitMaker Network: 230 Posts
Posted: Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 02:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I would think the interpretation referred to above would come from a German source, there were frequently attempts to justify war crimes by counter claims. For example, the justification for the massacre of the Royal Norfolks at Wormhoudt in 1940 was that they had been using "dum-dum" ammunition. Even had that been so, summary shooting out of hand was not the course of action suggested by the Geneva Convention.
It might be this one or another one during the same campaign. A quite plausible explanation I have heared for this massacre was that the cause was a young, junior Waffen-SS officer or NCO who basically had many of his troops killed in action and subsequently snapped.
The big problem with warcrimes is IMHO that they always happen in a war. IMHO the question concerning warcrimes is not "if they happened, but how many happened." However, the winner often determines who gets punished and who not, and what gets most attention in the historybooks.
To give a few examples: It was in "Saving Private Ryan" and in "Band of Brothers" that for the first time I saw allied soldiers committing warcrimes. And that does not even start the debate about the later stages of the bombing campaign (as symbolized by Dresden) and the treatment of POW's in the later stages of the war (April/May 1945) and the first few months afterwards. And that is leaving the Russians out of the picture.
Some of the lesser talked about stories are the mass rapes (perpetrated by the Russians) or the enormous amount of plunder (art and jewelry) shipped off not only to the USSR but also to the US and England.
tango20
Member Since: August 01, 2004
entire network: 1,281 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 06:03 AM UTC
H i all
I feel i must add to the last paragraph of your post the appauling behaviour of Neutral Switzerland with the retention of Jewish funds(still held) and further more the turning back of ligitimate refugees from its border and to certain death.
I agree that the victors very often write history and i now from first hand accounts that when people are subjected to the horror of combat they can snap.
A young infantary man with my dad towards the end of the war was getting some germans out of some woods all were dirty battle weary 1000 yard stare look ,except for a German officer who looked spotless in his pristine leather coat shaved and well fed he was told to get his hands up higher he lent forward and smirked in the young soldiers face with that he emptied the entire clip into him from almost point blank .
As he tried to re-load his sten my father pulled him away he was screaming at the dead german officer what have you got to smile about ,and broke down.
My dad said he was one of the most quiet and gental guys in the section,
Was he wrong Yes under the Geneva Convention would i have done the same in that situation ...18 years of age scared probably
Cheers Chris
I feel i must add to the last paragraph of your post the appauling behaviour of Neutral Switzerland with the retention of Jewish funds(still held) and further more the turning back of ligitimate refugees from its border and to certain death.
I agree that the victors very often write history and i now from first hand accounts that when people are subjected to the horror of combat they can snap.
A young infantary man with my dad towards the end of the war was getting some germans out of some woods all were dirty battle weary 1000 yard stare look ,except for a German officer who looked spotless in his pristine leather coat shaved and well fed he was told to get his hands up higher he lent forward and smirked in the young soldiers face with that he emptied the entire clip into him from almost point blank .
As he tried to re-load his sten my father pulled him away he was screaming at the dead german officer what have you got to smile about ,and broke down.
My dad said he was one of the most quiet and gental guys in the section,
Was he wrong Yes under the Geneva Convention would i have done the same in that situation ...18 years of age scared probably
Cheers Chris
DutchBird
#068
Member Since: April 09, 2003
entire network: 1,144 Posts
KitMaker Network: 230 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 11:41 AM UTC
Quoted Text
....
I agree that the victors very often write history and i now from first hand accounts that when people are subjected to the horror of combat they can snap.
A young infantary man with my dad towards the end of the war was getting some germans out of some woods all were dirty battle weary 1000 yard stare look ,except for a German officer who looked spotless in his pristine leather coat shaved and well fed he was told to get his hands up higher he lent forward and smirked in the young soldiers face with that he emptied the entire clip into him from almost point blank .
As he tried to re-load his sten my father pulled him away he was screaming at the dead german officer what have you got to smile about ,and broke down.
My dad said he was one of the most quiet and gental guys in the section,
Was he wrong Yes under the Geneva Convention would i have done the same in that situation ...18 years of age scared probably
Cheers Chris
Chris,
what you describe here is why I hold the opinion that the question is not "if warcrimes happen, but how many."
And that is why, at least in my opinion, there are "categories" of warcrimes (for as far as you can categorize them). Events like the Malmedy massacre, the massacre of the British POW's mentioned above (if I am thinking of the right event) or even the tussle between the Hitler Jugend Division and the Canadians in Normandy are on a different level then the shooting of POW's on the mrach to the camps, or the mass rapes in Berlin.
Luckily I have never had to witness horrific events like these, and I hope I never will. Three acquaintances however have... one serving in the Dutch army in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq.... and who saw the process within humans which can lead up to these type of " snap warcrimes" happening from up-close.
One a guy now mid twenties who grew up in Beirut of the civil war (before he came to the Netherlands). He had the blood of his best friend and his grandfather all over him when they got killed. He would be the posterchild for a charity called "Warchild" (instituted to help children who grew up or fought in a war). He was indeed, now, a gentle guy, but he could snap. And if not for the firm hand of his father he would have selfdestructed and/or become a violent criminal (by his own admission). But there is still a lot of hatred left in him from that period.
The third one is his father, who then commanded a unit. He never told me anything, but he tolds some people toned down stories... stories, as they said: "You don't want to know...". Again, a very gentle guy, who could snap as well (and supposedly in a terrifying way). What I remember him mostly for is the fact that he really cared for kids who were in trouble/hit a hard time...
HONEYCUT
Member Since: May 07, 2003
entire network: 4,002 Posts
KitMaker Network: 648 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 02:31 PM UTC
"There never was a good war or a bad peace" ~
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.