Talk:Joachim Peiper

The bulk of the text of this article is a direct copy and paste from [1], and may be a copyright violation. The tone is also unencylopedic. Wayward 07:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Red Scare

I agree with one of the other questions. Is there any proof that French communists were behind his death? Sounds pretty strange. If not, I say it should be deleted. --Baruchespinoza 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Travès

How come he went living in France?! It is rather unusual. Does anybody knows? Luka Jačov 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

He went to live in France because he had fallen in love with the beautiful french countryside during the war.

Have removed the word "brutally" from the description of his murder (not NPOV). Also, was his wife really called Sigurd? That's a boy's name. Could she have been Sigrid? --wwilly 08:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Her name is "Sigurd" (as mentioned here: [2] and on various Google results) --Colonel Cow 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased view on Peiper

I find this article quite biased and quite apologetic, as Peiper was a acknowledged and merciless war criminal (Boves, in Ukraine, Meledy...) and has been going nazi activities long after the war. His taking part in the crimes that occured is proven. And the version in this text, "on one side he was accused, ...", "on the other side, some say he is a good guy...", is distorting the truth and confuses the reader in a mitigated opinion. This guy is responsible for war crimes and has never regretted them, and has been going on nazi activities well after the war.

He has also acknowledged to witnessing "experimentations" in Dachau in the early war on jews and on political prisoners, so was fully aware of what was going on.

He was indeed a translator after the war, true, of nostalgic war nazi witnesses books, one from a "division charlemagne", (the french that enrolled as SS in the nazi army)

His murder, "probably by french communists" smacks of far right propaganda. Why not say it is indeed a mystery? The current theory given in 2 recent french books is that Peiper probably fakes his own death in the arson of his house and to avoid to be prosecuted by italian justice. Indeed, he was discovered as the war criminal by the french communiste newspaper "l'humanité" 3 weeks before its "death". And Italy has always said that the trial in Germany, that releases Peiper had been a mockery, as no italian victims and witnesses had been listened to and would probably asked for extradition.

source L'affaire Peiper de Roger Martin

L'affaire Peiper : Plus qu'un fait divers (This one is not recent by the way 1979)

The French article is somewhat more neutral http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Peiper

References?

- IMo, this article sucks anyway. This line is the best: "...1935 upon his graduation from college. (Actually, although this is commonly reported, there is no evidence that Peiper ever attended college." So instead of making a correction, the writer just conficts the whole statement. On the note of neutrality, it goes on far too long about alleged massacre roles. How about more of his tank battles? That is what he best known for. user:Pzg Ratzinger

---

1) First of all, Joachim Peiper was not involved with the Malmedy massacre, the only reason that he gets s much attention about it is because he was the responsible officer of the unit that shot the soldiers. What happened at Malmedy is to this day unknown.

2)It is "proven" that Paul Cacheux was leader of the group that murdered Joachim Peiper, but it is unclear if it was a failed attempt to scare him, or if it was a assasination.

3) Could you make a translation of the French version of the article? Perhaps it's indeed better than the current one.

--Feldmaus

1) Although one might think there was no direct involvment of Peiper in the Malmedy massacre, the fact is that Peipers' "Kampfgruppe" has left a bloody trail during its run from Lanzerath to La Gleize where it was finally stopped by the US armed forces. During their trial in Dachau, Peipers and his men, but also the commander of the 6th Panzer Army, Sepp Dietrich were accused of having killed in cold blood more that 300 American POWs Honsfeld, Büllingen, Ondenval, Malmedy, Ligneuville, Stavelot and Stoumont. Moreover, there were also charges of cold blood killing of some 90 civilians (including women and (very) young children) in Stavelot and the surrounding area.

Several testimonies of his own men made during the Malmedy massacre trial (one of the Dachau trials) and before stated he would have ordered to make no prisoners and/or to have ordered the cold-killing of some of them.

More information about what happened can be found in the "Review and recommandations of the deputy judge advocate" of 20 October 1947, available on this website: http://137.248.11.66/attachments?lang=de&barcode=06-024

Moreover, on the East front Peiper and his men had already got within the SS troops (no less!) a reputation of mercyless soldiers since they had burned several Russian villages and killed their inhabitants.

In my view, there is no doubt that Peiper was nothing else than a war criminal, although many books try to show him rather as a great soldier.

2) No comment since I lack of information on the exact circumstances of his death.

3) The French article is even more an apology of Peiper than the English one. I intend to change the French article as soon I find time enough.--Lebob-BE 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Just a short sentence to the "faking his own death to avoid being prosecuted by italian courts"-thing: If a German didn't want to be prosecuted in other countries he would simply go to Germany, as Germany didn't deliver citizens to other countries. It was (and mainly is up to today) forbidden by its constitution!

The article first mentions his nickname (which is not important enough to mention in the first lines) then the next thing we read is that he was a war criminal. Rationally, the article must start with his occupation and I didn't hear anybody who works as a war criminal. You can say he was a SS and he took military actions which was forbidden according to the international law then you can talk about his nickname later if you really want to. Thats really the worst beginning that I've read in my entire life. With respect, Deliogul 18:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whereas a French article is, of course, going to be 100% neutral; the truth is that Peiper is simply too complex to be labelled either 'wholly' negatively or apologised for. Undoubtedly, there are many features to his legacy that are negative, but we also have evidence for a degree of humanity in relation to his handling of a group of Italian Jews. Also, the omission of evidence for college should not cause the removal of this statement; most Nazis were given, although often politically motivated, degrees and it is unlikely that the deputy head of the German state would have accepted a non-graduate.

Picture

What happened to the old picture? It was certainly much better than the current one.--Abacab 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes made on December 6, 2006

The article on Peiper looked like a hagiography. This is amazing, to say the least, for someone who has been sentenced to death for war crimes. He is definitely not “Sankt Jochen” Peiper.

Even if he was a great soldier, the fact is that units under his command have committed war crimes on the East front and during the battle of the Bulge. Even if the report of the US Senate’s Subcommittee points out that irregularities (but no torture!) occurred during the pre-trial procedure, which eventually led to the death sentences being commuted to life prison, one can not deny the fact that more than 300 Americans POWs and 80 Belgian civilians have been killed by men belonging to his Kampfgruppe.

Moreover, as stressed by the report of the Subcommittee, during the interrogations preceding the trial, Peiper and his men were kept in conditions under which they were free to communicate. This allowed them, apparently under Peiper’s lead, to agree on their answers to the investigators and to coordinate them . Among others, they agreed to charge Poeschke, who had conveniently been killed in action in 1945.

One can of course argue whether Peiper ordered or not the massacres. The fact is that for the Malmedy massacre, he was most probably already 4 km ahead of the crossroads where the massacre occured when it was perpetrated. However, many testimonies of his men relate that before the battle, he clearly said that prisoners should be killed.

I have also removed the testimonies of the Jewish rabbi and of Major McCowan (and not McCown) because I am of opinion that if the article quotes some testimonies in favour of Peiper, it should also quote the testimonies against him (and there are much more testimonies against him than in his favour). And the purpose of this article is not to rewrite the Malmedy massacre trial.

More specifically, with respect to McCowan’s testimony, I would like to stress that when he became Peiper’s prisoner in La Gleize, Peiper was already surrounded by the American forces and was not sure he could escape. I believe that even the most stupid soldier would not order to kill POWs under these circumstances. Moreover, assuming that Peiper was aware of the massacres, why would he have confess them to a American major, knowing that this could maybe used against him later on.

I think that these changes will make this article a little bit more balanced than it was.--Lebob-BE 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hagiography & the Holocaust

I agree with the hagiography comments, this article reeks of the influence of Agte's unabashedly hero-worshipping book. For example, the fact that Peiper was on Himmler's personal staff as his adjutant in the period April 1938 to August 1941 (save for a detachment during the Battle of France) gets barely a mention in Agte's book and is almost completely passed over in this article. The implications of that status, and Peiper's direct knowledge of and involvement in the planning of the exterminations in Poland, the concentration camp system and the treatment of the Jews are all matters that a better article would address. As Reynolds points out in his considerably more objective book there is photographic evidence of Peiper visiting Mauthausen concentration camp with Himmler and notes that it was Peiper who summoned Rudolf Hoss to Himmler's presence for Hoss to be informed that he was taking over Auschwitz and of the details of the Final Solution. Since Peiper was directly aware of the extent of Nazi atrocities and explicitly maintained his Nazi affiliation after the war its difficult to conclude anything other than he approved of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.68.6 (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Is it actually likely that Peiper was aware of the 'Final Solution,' after all, the Wannsee conference occurs nearly six months after he transfers from Himmler's staff? On this note, perhaps the quote concerning the Italian Jews alluded to above should be included on this basis, not as continuing the 'hagigography,' but to demonstrate that Peiper probably was either uninformed or, in fact, opposed to the idea? Unsigned- 30 April 2007 4:56 GMT

It's right to say that he didn't attend the Wannsee conference. However, he was still member of Himmler's staff during the planning of the Operation Barbarossa. At that time, Himmler and Heydrich planned the operations that needed to be carried on by the Einsatzgruppen in Russia on the rear of the German invasion armies. It is hard to believe that Peiper would not have been aware of what has been planned at that time. It's also hard to believe that he was opposed to the idea. I have never read a quote from Peiper where he stated he was opposed to the mass killing of Jews or to the Shoah.--Lebob-BE 20:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Peiper's quotations

The quotations are of course translated. But where can the original quoatations (in German) be read? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.153.92.212 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi, i found in the German Wiki one interesting quote from Piper about the Malmedy-Massacre.

Nach den fragmentarisch erhalten gebliebenen Aufzeichnung der Hitler-Rede im Adlerhorst hatte dieser unter anderem ausgeführt, dass die Ardennenoffensive von einer „Welle der Gewalt und des Terrors“ vorgetragen werden müsse. Die Literatur geht davon aus, dass entsprechende Anweisungen an die jeweiligen Einheitsführer weitergegeben wurden, ein schriftlicher Befehl ist jedoch nicht bekannt. Peiper äußerte sich in seiner Vernehmung nach dem Krieg - in Bezug auf eine Besprechung mit seinen Offizieren - dazu wie folgt: --- Begin of quote --- „Auf dieser Besprechung habe ich mit keinem Wort davon gesprochen, daß Kriegsgefangene erschossen werden sollten, wenn die örtliche taktische Lage es erforderlich machte, weil alle bei der Besprechung erfahrene Offiziere waren, denen das klar war.“ (zit. nach Henke, Besetzung, S. 325). --- end of quote ---

Free translation of me:

In preparing the Ardenne-Operation Hitler shall have said that this operation should be a wave of violence and terror. Asked After war what Piper said in the meeting with his Officers, he mean: --- Begin of quote --- "On this meeting i never said that POWs should be shoot if the local tactical situation demands it, because all of them was experienced officers, who knew that." --- end of quote ---

I recomend that some better skilled "translator" should make a real translation. Maybe u can find that qoute in english too.

Literal: Translation, verbatim "Of this discussion I did not speak of with any words, that POWs were to be shot when the tactical situation required it, this was clear to all other officers present at the discussion". A 'Besprechung', discussion, is not a 'befehl', order.

During the war a FührerBefehl, or Leaders order (Hitler's directive), would have been read down the chain of command from Corps commander on down to Peiper and from Peiper to his officers and NCOs of Kampfgruppe Peiper. The other officers he mentions are his subordinates and other battle group commanders for Operation Wacht Am Rhein present during the 'Beschprechung'.

Since we must take Peiper's own words here, he makes a clever distinction between his choice of words. That is, a 'befehl' or oder to wage terror versus his use of the word 'Besprechung' or discussion on how to conduct the battle. According to Hitler's own FührerBefehl given them by Sepp Dietrich, the Corps Commander, Peiper would have been obligated under his oath to follow those orders and it is proven that elements of Kampfgruppe Peiper commited war crimes during this operation.

For a senior commander such as Peiper to have come from Himmler's staff and having been accepted by Sepp Dietrich himself into the LSSAH to hold a discussion on direct orders from Hitler who had personally awarded him his Knights Cross seems rather like reading science fiction. Take from it what you will.

-By eindhoven

Changes of 25 December 2006

I have removed the changes made on 17 December 2006 by 85.130.20.225 because:

• Article of Judge Van Roden has been written before the report of the Senate’s subcommittee. Furthermore, in its report, the subcommittee clearly states that Judge Van Roden has acknowledged he never wrote this article which contained false allegations (notably with respect to “Beatings and brutal cickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws”). The report also established that such things did not happen.

• Although it is clear that Peiper was probably not at the crossroads when the massacre occurred, he was not sentenced only for this fact. He was commanding a “Kampfgruppe” which killed more that 300 POWs not only at the crossroads, but in others places as well. Moreover, 100 Belgian civilians were also killed by the men who were under Peiper’s command. As commanding officer, Peiper bears at least a responsibility. Futhermore, it seems that this kind of facts was quite common within the units commanded by Peiper. A mere coincidence?

• The last sentence can be found in scrapbookpage.com (including the wrong spelling of the names of Mrs. Bodarme (in fact Bodarwé) and Mr. Le Joly (in fact Lejoly). Beside the copyright issue, one can raise some questions on the accuracy of scrapbookpages on that issue (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malmedy_massacre).--Lebob-BE 17:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Peiper in Italy (Boves massacre)

A few kilometres north of Cuneo in Italy, lies the town of Boves. After September 8th, 1943, it became an active center of the Italian underground because of the stationing of many stragglers from the now disbanded Regio Esercito (Royal Italian Army). These partisans were led by Bartolomeo Giuliano, Ezio Aceto and Ignazio Vian. After repeated requests to surrender, the partisans refused in spite of leaflets being dropped by the SS. On the 17th of September the German commander, SS Major Joachim Peiper, ordered two gun crews to shell the town. The partisans again refused to surrender. Two German soldiers were then sent forward (as decoys) to be captured by the partisans. Hoping they would be killed, it would give Peiper the pretext for a slaughter. The parish priest, Father Giuseppe Bernardi and the industrialist, Alessandro Vassallo, were ordered to meet with the partisans and to persuade them to release the two soldiers. The priest asked Peiper 'Will you spare the town?'. Peiper gave his word and the two prisoners were released. But the blood-thirsty SS then proceeded to burn all the houses in the town after which Father Bernardi and Vassallo were put into a car to do an inspection of the devastated town. 'They must admire the spectacle' said Peiper. After the inspection, Father Bernardi and his companion, Vassallo, were sprinkled with petrol and set alight. Both were burned to death. Forty-three other inhabitants of Boves were killed that day and 350 houses destroyed. Next day, a column of armoured vehicles went up the road that led to the partisan base. A lucky shot from their only 75 mm gun destroyed the leading armoured car. After an intense fire-fight the SS retreated with heavy losses. One of the partisan leaders, Ignazio Vian, was later captured by the SS and hanged in Turin. On the wall of his cell he had written in his own blood the words "Better Die Rather Than Betray". [3] --HanzoHattori 07:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to ignore this? [4] --HanzoHattori 09:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started a Boves massacre article. Nothing really there as yet; feel free to populate it. (Also, the German wikipedia page says 23 killed, while the quote above says 45; which is most accurate?) -- Hongooi 12:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever else Peiper may or may not have been guilty of, there are differences of opinion as to what happened at Boves. Certainly the account given here has some degree of nonsense to it. No Waffen-SS commander would have deliberately sacrificed two of his own men in the hope they would be murdered. Anyone who has any understanding of how the Waffen-SS operated should know better. Peiper would have gladly served up any number of Italians to serve his purposes, but not his own men. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I've made an effort to put together an NPOV assessment of the man. IMO it's clear that he was a pretty vicious piece of work; however, it also seems clear that he has a sterling military reputation (and let's face it, you don't win the Knight's Cross by sitting on your behind). I suspect it won't make any difference, but we'll see. -- Hongooi 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pieper was quite a piece of work indeed. His military accomplishments were very impressive; but in my mind there is no doubt that he was responsible for numerous attrocities and war crimes. INTO THE REICH published by Osprey documented that his unit once claimed 2,000 Russian soldiers killed and taking a mere handful of soldiers. It hardly works in Peiper's faor that the Eatern Front was a savage battlefield; the Germanic barbarization of war is virtually undisputed in scholarly research. The German army invaded USSR without provocation, and from day one ordered ruthless suppression of resistance passive or active. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.202.30 (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Victors' Justice

Peipper's case is just another instance of victors' justice! if he ( and the waffen ss in general) are to be accused of war crimes then how about considering the following:

• General George Patton, the american hero, ordered the 'no - prisoners' rule in Sicily against surrendering germans long before germans ever maltreated american POWs.
• British commandos started the sequence of atrocitites in the anglo-german battles in their raids in france and north africa.
• Newzealanders of freyberg's units started the practice of bayoneting enemy(german) wounded in north africa.
• In 1944, in the Normandy campaign, the allies, americans and canadians in particular made shooting of POWs ( especially in the immediate aftermath of capture) almost a regular practice. Waffen SS POWs were the most vulnerable to this glorious practice of the "free world forces".
• Again in 1944, during operation market garden,it has been openly acknowledged that british officers threatened german POWs with pistols shoved into their faces , to give away their field positions as the offensive was in progress on the dutch-belgian border.
• About Soviet atrocities .. well .. do i really need to elaborate on them? they didnt know what was the difference between a war crime and normal war practice! their atrocities started within the first few hours of operation barbarossa.. when russian troops cut off a german petrol in the northern sector,and then hideously mutilated all the POWs with sabres in cold blood.
• In the Katyn forests in poland, russians machine gunned thousands of polish army officers and later blamed it on the germans.
• Among the german POWs taken in stalingrad, running into hundreds of thousands, only 5000 were kept alive by the humanitarian soviets after the war.
• These of course pale if compared with the great champion of freedom, president harry truman's nuclear bombing of japanese civilians.. where we all know what happened.
• What the french did in indo china and algeria, what the americans did in vietnam and iraq.. well compared to all that the actions of peiper are sooo tame!
• And the continued zionist actions against palestine?

The problem is that certain people have come to hold the monopoly on truth and morality.. communists, zionists, feminists, so called left-liberals ( the english term liberal needs to be reviewed to accomodate the extreme illiberal thoughts of these people).. they can do no wrong and all their atrocities have a very noble and progressive interpretation! 61.3.128.153 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Sandeep Mukherjee ( kwai196@yahoo.com)
These issues should be discussed in separate articles rather than altering the wording on Peiper.72.138.97.220 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

quote is incorrectly translated

the quote with the footnote #4 is incorrectly translated. Also in the origional German, the use of the word schon with umlauts (schoen when you have a keyboard without the umlaut version of the vowels) is incorrect in should be used as schon without the umlauts. schoen is translated as pretty and is pronounced shuen, however schon is translated as already and is pronounced shown. A more correct translation of this quote would be: "If we lose the war, it will already be shitty for us because of these things." Tony Alton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.2.62.15 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some questions and issues answered or corrected.

Peiper was not 'a soldier.' He was an officer (in the Waffen SS). The term soldier refers to enlisted ranks. Please correct. Peiper's father was not a "career Army officer." Please correct. The father qualified for the Prussian officer corps in World War I and ended that war as a captain. Afterwards he made a career in the civil service. Peiper's wife was from north Germany near Schleswig-Holstein, sometimes Danish and sometimes German, depending on who won what when, and her names reflected a Scandinavian influence. Agree that the 'nickname' clause is awkward at the beginning when search engines can usually find Joachim (Jochen). This is sufficiently covered in 'nickname' in the right short facts box. But it was inserted because the original entry repeated a nonsensical claim by a British writer Charles Whiting, that Peiper changed his name because the SS didn't like Biblical names. Idiocy--half the names in Germany were 'Biblical,' and by the way, the Waffen SS had church call, field Masses, chaplains and most had Catholic or Lutheran references on those KIA remembrance cards. And didn't weren't responsible for the destruction of churches in combat more than anyone else. Jochen is just a familiar form of Joachim, and he was called that from childhood. He was baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran church. Blowtorch battalion--another idiocy invented by the special-interest group 'prosecutors' who populated the US military 'tribunals' for the propaganda value. Hundreds of photos show Leibstandarte units on the Ostfront with a blowtorch proudly painted on their equipment. It was a morale booster acknowledging how difficult it was to start up vehicles in the extreme cold. And as veterans point out, one doesn't blowtorch structures when one's tanks have a range of over a mile, or when you need shelter at 40 below. The official records show Peiper was enrolled as an SS-Mann in 1934, not 1933, then began officer training in 1935, entered the prestigious SS military academy for advanced studies 1935-36, and was commissioned in 1936. During WWII, German forces and their hundreds of thousands of European comrades crossed several borders. They had the British and French (for a while) coming at them from one directions, the Bolsheviks from the other, and then the US. Some populations welcomed them, as in anti-Stalinist Ukraine, the German-speaking Austrians of the former Hapsburg Empire, or those ethnic Germans of the border provinces that had unwillingly become part of the new countries of Poland and Czechoslovakia with the Versailles Treaty. Some Europeans joined the Germans against the Bolsheviks, some were conscripted into labor forces, most tolerated or collaborated or did business as usual, changed sides etc. Thus the experience of German occupation, defense or combat forces varied at different times or places. Italy had fought with the Germans, but after the Allies took Sicily, got out of the war. German forces in Italy, as elsewhere, were attacked by communist civilian partisans or terrorists or insurgents, which has a different set of rules than Geneva. Is a military force committing war crimes when it fights against or captures or imprisons terrorists? Or when innocent civilians get caught in a combat zone or get shelled or bombed? Ask the Bush administration. European education system in 1935--diffferent than in the US. The European states require that children be enrolled from 6 to 11 in lower school, and 11 to 16 in higher school (or until the required courses are completed). There are no graduation ceremonies or diplomas. Germany is a small country and personal data is verified directly from the institution involved. After school-leaving, most young people went on to apprenticeships for work training or the trades, or to training schools such as nursing, elementary teaching, fine arts, office courses, which as in the US at the time, did not require college. A few young people, academically talented or ambitious, went on to 4 more years of higher schooling from 16 to 20, choosing between a classical or a modern curriculum. Upon completion of those 4 years, students have a certificate of completion instead of a bachelor's degree, and are scheduled to take a state exam for an equivalent qualification called the Abitur, a prerequisite qualification for civil service managerial positions, military officers, or entry to university, which in Europe is for graduate studies leading to a PhD. Peiper completed 4 years of higher schooling in Berlin and was scheduled for his Abitur exam but his officer training was scheduled to start a few weeks earlier, and he started the training course instead, with the Abitur waived. Again, Whiting is in egregious error when he states Peiper didn't even graduate from high school and couldn't pass his exams. But whether one considers completing four more years of post-school-leaving education as 'college' is up to you. Plus, the military academy advanced course gave its graduates the equivalent of a US master's degree in military science. Peiper was quite well educated. The article states he was 29 when promoted to full colonel, but that was in Apr of 1945 when he was 30, although he was 29 when awarded the Swords. Please correct. The 'adjutant' in the US Army is an administrative function that keeps track of assignments, orders, casualties, AWOLs, etc., usually with large staffs depending on the unit size. The German military use the same term in a quite different sense--to describe an aide-de-camps, a general's aide, or a liaison representative from the service branches. Himmler's Berlin office had some 14 different departments reporting and was under his chief of staff and head of the Personalstab Karl Wolff, an SS general. So, Peiper's position came under the Personalstab, under Wolff, and included the drivers, telephonists, typing pool and so on. The 2nd Lts. assigned to Prinzalbrechtstr. on a rotating basis were mannerly, presentable youngsters from the Leibstandarte Guard unit, who performed such showy duties as helping VIP visitors with their coats and making sure the car was brought round, accompanying Wolff and Himmler on state visits, tours, inspections, etc. "Murder' of civilians in Lanzerath, Malmedy etc. (the charges included Bullingen and Stavelot too, the latter seemingly a pretext to include a Maj. Knittel among the accused, who was not a member of Kampfgruppe Peiper and whose troops were not under Peiper's command, and who never got in to Stavelot--but so said the vague unsubstantiated charges brought by the special-interest prosecutors, although unproved, unevidenced, and none of their (US) business anyway. The Belgian government did its own investigation post-war and came to a different conclusion. Also, it is a well-evidenced fact that USAAF bombers bombed and flattened Malmedy for three days in a row during the Bulge battle, although it was held by US forces, thus bombing our own forces and civilians repeatedly--our pilots got lost. It was a surprise campaign, and a susrprise to the locals, who usually have time to move out of a combat zone. This was a border region and many Waffen SS had grown up in the area and many Belgians had family members serving in the German forces. The US had the air power for the bombings and strafings, and in the absence of forensics, who was killed by whom was not determined. It is true, however, that if one side suspected that the enemy was receiving assistance from civilians, such would be considered combatants. The dozens of war crimes events post-war were not called trials, but tribunals, and not conducted according to UCMJ. The who and why of these tribunals is one reason for the continuing interest and generated 'significant controversy' among Americans as well. And did resulting convictions mean the accused were in fact war criminals, or even that war crimes had taken place just because the prosecutors said so? Move to France--why not? Europeans move around frequently, for family reasons, employment, study and so on, including French to Germany. For Peiper, it was cheaper to live there. He learned of a small uncleared parcel of land in France, near the German border, that he could afford to buy, cleared it himself, had a vacation cabin built on it, and later lived there full time. An American point of view might be that the French hate the Germans or vice versa more than they hate tourists, but not true, in fact one neighbor was another former Waffen officer. Peiper translated what works publishers gave him based on what they believed might have market value for an English-speaking audience. And it was FROM German TO Enlish. Glorifying the Reich or its armed forces was in fact a banned topic. The word murder again--Peiper died when his house, his only asset, was fire-bombed, indeed by communists, and fire-bombing the homes of people on their hit list was a common tactic of theirs in that time. Their hate campaign had started earlier as a warning, but Peiper wouldn't leave his property. Whether his death was intended is not clear, although deaths resulting from arson are sometimes prosecuted as murder. Peiper was NOT charged with murdering defenseless POWs. He (and the senior officers who were directing the campaign from Germany) were charged NOT with doing it but with being part of a grand design or aiding and abetting or some such--look it up.72.81.84.211 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)