A fact from Malmedy massacre trial appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 July 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}}
Elaboration on the criticisms, please? -- Tothebarricades.tk 22:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-- Frank.visser 12:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
also, on why the death penalties were not carried out. ✈ James C. 01:44, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
and also a reason for why the right-wing repeatedly brings it up? porge 03:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
were the non-death sentences carried out? shortened? commuted? Rmhermen 03:38, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
They all probably got what they deserved. You don't kill your prisoners. It merely confirmed what we already knew about the discraced SS organization. Nothing more than a bunch of thugs in uniform legitimized by the state. Even though the entire Wehrmacht committed attrocities, the most conducted in the field were by the Waffen SS, The Einsatzgruppen of the TKvB and the Polizie Feld Regiments. All were SS and therefore Nazi Party organizations. They want to get everyone to focus on their being soldiers and not on the fact that they were thugs in uniform who may have fought hard in conbat are now over glorified by a bunch of revisionists and apoligists. The SS was the military arm of the SS and as such got what they deserved. They have been given the equivelent of elite status as the US Marines, The marines however didn't routinely kill its prisoners and round up hapless civilians for deportation to slave labor camps.
user:
Tomtom 0905, 26 July 2004
I am not entirely certain what bias is held by the article for the Jewish Virtual Library (I think it's likely the work of several different people, each trying to clean up the last's work); but I am quite certain that it is irremediably biased. We don't need to scream about Hitler and the SS being evil for it to be true, nor do those we source. Unless anyone can offer a compelling reason for keeping, I think it ought to be excised. Wally 19:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Wiki article seems to be based on one web page on the net [1]. It needs the input of several more sources to balance it. At the moment the major paragraph is a list of grievances from that article about how unfair the proceeding were. It needs a piece on the case against the accused, the case for the defence, and a piece on the ruling by the judges, preferably with an example of some legal heavy weight stating if it has been used as precidence in any other international case.
The grievances about alleged unfair proceeding should be mentioned but they must be kept in proportion to the rest of the article, because although as the article mentions there are problems with the procedures did they cause an innocent man to be found guilty?
Camparisons with procedures used and the the case presented and against the accused in the Biscari Massacre might be interesting and educational as well. Philip Baird Shearer 16:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, the article has been reworked and as such, I'll remove the tag in a few days unless someone stills has a bone to pick. -- Ebralph 22:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if any of you have actually read the Senate report and it's conclusions. Aschenauer was a very effective defense lawyer but the Senate's committee couldn't find any proof of torture and coercion. The smokescreen he created did cause the result he wanted as most of the defendants were released shortly afterwards. On Aschenauer: http://lexikon.idgr.de/a/a_s/aschenauer-rudolf/aschenauer-rudolf.php 2468Motorway
MALMEDY and McCARTHY Printed in the AMERICAN MERCURY November 1954 By Freda Utley
Who was the lawyer who defended the defendants? As the article stands now we have two external links who state that it was an american lawyer, and one link to a page in german that states that it was a german. The German page is by the way a page which strives to combat right wing extremists by trying to contradict their assertions. I am not at all confident that it can be counted on to be NPOV. Stor stark7 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why article should be seperate from Malmedy massacre. I think I'm going to merge it into that article in the near future. Raul654 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I recall the trial was also largely disputed in Belgium and that a government inquiry into the massacre was organised that also came to the conclusion that the trial was at least unfair.
Then a general note. The notion that every SS (or just these SS) should have been shot for belonging to the SS shows plain ignorance of who was in the Waffen SS and how they came to be part of that force. It is also criminally stupid as it goes against all notions of justice, you cannot condemn someone for the crimes of another. That is to say you cannot condemn a 17 year of Waffen SS for the crimes committed by some other Waffen SS of the same unit a few years earlier. Being a member of the Waffen SS does not mean an automatic death sentence is valid. And yes, warcrimes were committed by units of all branches of the German military (I'll include the SS and Waffen SS here, though they were separate). warcrimes were also committed by forces of most other beligerents. All of these have to be seen separately (only blanket exhonerations, as often take place in Germany today, should be condemned).
Oh and lastly it's not just the extreme right or right that criticises the Malmedy trials, though obviously the extreme right tends to abuse the issue.-- Caranorn 12:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, I am playing Johny-come lately as usual but I have this to say:
Not every SS men was a war criminal. It is however utterly ludicrous to believe that the innocent accounted for more than a tiny minority. Peiper couldn't give the "I was drafted and I was young and stupid" defense, because he was 29 and JOINED the SS. He was an Eastern Front veteran, '41-'43. For crying outloud, the Germans were murdering Russian civilians by the MILLIONS during those years, intentionally leaving POWs to die of exposure, executing card-holding communists and Jews captured on the spot.... the list goes on. Peiper is damned lucky that he was treated by the highest standard of civilized conduct that such a man as he could hope for. -Jon C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.69.153 ( talk) 07:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Richard Gallagher(The Malmedy Massacre, pg.128-129)Van Roden denied that he had said that any prisoners had been struck in the testicles, let alone that their testicles had been permanently damaged. The allegation appeared in the February, 1949 issue of The Progressive.
I have now written an article on the French Wikipedia on the same topic, but I have expanded it quite a lot. -- Lebob-BE 22:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now expanded that article quite a lot, mainly translating my fr version. However, since I am not a native English writter, a thorough review of what I have written would be welcome. -- Lebob-BE 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I have reworked this article, I wonder whether the factual accuracy banner is still justified for this page. By lack of contrary opinion, I will remove it by the end of this week. -- Lebob-BE 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently much of what was done here was by editors that do not have English as a 1st langauge as the sentence construction and choice of verbage is exceedingly strange. I am not disputing any of the core material but this sure needs some serious copy edit. Tirronan 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected this to the best of my ability while trying not to change anything. Please check to make sure I didn't change anything so as to change the article from the intent. Please feel free to change anything that doesn't meet your requirments. Humbly Tirronan 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You are most welcome! One point that your article missed was the fact that had this trial taken place in America it would have been thrown out of court for gross misconduct by the prosecution. Evidence obtained in the manner that it was is a gross violation of American Jurisprudence. I feel that most of the accused were guilty but our laws pertaining to how a trial must be run are very clear. While I personally feel that most of them should have been shot for war crimes, the law should have been respected and apparently it wasn't. Tirronan 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposal to rename the article Dachau International Military Tribunal to be Dachau Military Tribunal, deleting "International". Please review and give your opinion at the move proposal on that Talk page. -- Jdlh | Talk 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Of 75 defendants, 73 were found guilty, 1 innocent. What happened to the last one? Clarityfiend 21:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, the "Bill O'Reilly on Malmedy" virus is infecting this article, too. An editor just added a section to this article about Bill O'Reilly's factually incorrect statements about the Malmedy massacre in October 2005. I believe that this content does not belong in this article, and I've deleted it. Reasons:
So, I think a story about Bill O'Reilly doesn't belong in an article about the Malmedy massacre trial. Where it really belongs is in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Thus I've deleted it. If there's disagreement, let's discuss it here and see if we can reach a consensus. Looking forward to your comments. -- Jdlh | Talk 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A young and ambitious Senator in search of publicity, Joseph McCarthy, had obtained from the subcommittee’s chairman authorization to attend the hearings. Apparently, McCarthy, who felt that his senatorial career was fading, had decided to seize the opportunity for publicity
Unwarranted speculation on McCarthy's motives. Or did he actually tell witnesses that he was in search of publicity? If so, why use "apparently" in the second sentence?
A little later, McCarthy started the witch-hunt that made him famous
"Witch-hunt" is obviously a loaded, biased term. He claimed to exposing Communists, not witches. 190.10.6.47 ( talk) 15:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There are few characters in American history this side of Aaron Burr more derisive then Joe McCarthy, unfortunately some of that bleeds into this article apparently. However finding good sources that discuss him with less loathing isn't something very easy to do. One could make a case that "Witch-hunt" which is an American term for seaching for something you are going to find regardless of fact would be a fairly accurate description of what was in fact happening. Tirronan ( talk) 17:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Major problems with the tone overall, actually, not just in that section. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The SS should have been exterminated like cockroaches without all this pissing about. Wasn't that Churchill's view ?-- Streona ( talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Malmedy massacre trial's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "MacDonald":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
US soldiers had regularly murdered unarmed Axis POWs throughout the Italian and Normandy campaigns, long before the Malmedy massacre took place. 86.148.205.150 ( talk) 15:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
"The commission did not exonerate the defendants or absolve them of guilt and it endorsed the conclusions General Clay issued in the particular case of Lieutenant Christ. In summary, Clay had written that "he was personally convinced of the culpability of Lieutenant Christ and, that for this reason his death sentence was fully justified"
From the context, one can infer that Lieutenant Christ was a defendant in the trial. He worthy of being singled out at the end of the article, but not at the beginning where individual defendants are introduced. It is my opinion that something explaining who Lieutenant Christ was and why General Clay was convinced of his culpability is in order. Regards, David 4.14.43.226 ( talk) 14:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
A fact from Malmedy massacre trial appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 July 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}}
Elaboration on the criticisms, please? -- Tothebarricades.tk 22:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-- Frank.visser 12:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
also, on why the death penalties were not carried out. ✈ James C. 01:44, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
and also a reason for why the right-wing repeatedly brings it up? porge 03:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
were the non-death sentences carried out? shortened? commuted? Rmhermen 03:38, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
They all probably got what they deserved. You don't kill your prisoners. It merely confirmed what we already knew about the discraced SS organization. Nothing more than a bunch of thugs in uniform legitimized by the state. Even though the entire Wehrmacht committed attrocities, the most conducted in the field were by the Waffen SS, The Einsatzgruppen of the TKvB and the Polizie Feld Regiments. All were SS and therefore Nazi Party organizations. They want to get everyone to focus on their being soldiers and not on the fact that they were thugs in uniform who may have fought hard in conbat are now over glorified by a bunch of revisionists and apoligists. The SS was the military arm of the SS and as such got what they deserved. They have been given the equivelent of elite status as the US Marines, The marines however didn't routinely kill its prisoners and round up hapless civilians for deportation to slave labor camps.
user:
Tomtom 0905, 26 July 2004
I am not entirely certain what bias is held by the article for the Jewish Virtual Library (I think it's likely the work of several different people, each trying to clean up the last's work); but I am quite certain that it is irremediably biased. We don't need to scream about Hitler and the SS being evil for it to be true, nor do those we source. Unless anyone can offer a compelling reason for keeping, I think it ought to be excised. Wally 19:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Wiki article seems to be based on one web page on the net [1]. It needs the input of several more sources to balance it. At the moment the major paragraph is a list of grievances from that article about how unfair the proceeding were. It needs a piece on the case against the accused, the case for the defence, and a piece on the ruling by the judges, preferably with an example of some legal heavy weight stating if it has been used as precidence in any other international case.
The grievances about alleged unfair proceeding should be mentioned but they must be kept in proportion to the rest of the article, because although as the article mentions there are problems with the procedures did they cause an innocent man to be found guilty?
Camparisons with procedures used and the the case presented and against the accused in the Biscari Massacre might be interesting and educational as well. Philip Baird Shearer 16:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, the article has been reworked and as such, I'll remove the tag in a few days unless someone stills has a bone to pick. -- Ebralph 22:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if any of you have actually read the Senate report and it's conclusions. Aschenauer was a very effective defense lawyer but the Senate's committee couldn't find any proof of torture and coercion. The smokescreen he created did cause the result he wanted as most of the defendants were released shortly afterwards. On Aschenauer: http://lexikon.idgr.de/a/a_s/aschenauer-rudolf/aschenauer-rudolf.php 2468Motorway
MALMEDY and McCARTHY Printed in the AMERICAN MERCURY November 1954 By Freda Utley
Who was the lawyer who defended the defendants? As the article stands now we have two external links who state that it was an american lawyer, and one link to a page in german that states that it was a german. The German page is by the way a page which strives to combat right wing extremists by trying to contradict their assertions. I am not at all confident that it can be counted on to be NPOV. Stor stark7 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why article should be seperate from Malmedy massacre. I think I'm going to merge it into that article in the near future. Raul654 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I recall the trial was also largely disputed in Belgium and that a government inquiry into the massacre was organised that also came to the conclusion that the trial was at least unfair.
Then a general note. The notion that every SS (or just these SS) should have been shot for belonging to the SS shows plain ignorance of who was in the Waffen SS and how they came to be part of that force. It is also criminally stupid as it goes against all notions of justice, you cannot condemn someone for the crimes of another. That is to say you cannot condemn a 17 year of Waffen SS for the crimes committed by some other Waffen SS of the same unit a few years earlier. Being a member of the Waffen SS does not mean an automatic death sentence is valid. And yes, warcrimes were committed by units of all branches of the German military (I'll include the SS and Waffen SS here, though they were separate). warcrimes were also committed by forces of most other beligerents. All of these have to be seen separately (only blanket exhonerations, as often take place in Germany today, should be condemned).
Oh and lastly it's not just the extreme right or right that criticises the Malmedy trials, though obviously the extreme right tends to abuse the issue.-- Caranorn 12:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, I am playing Johny-come lately as usual but I have this to say:
Not every SS men was a war criminal. It is however utterly ludicrous to believe that the innocent accounted for more than a tiny minority. Peiper couldn't give the "I was drafted and I was young and stupid" defense, because he was 29 and JOINED the SS. He was an Eastern Front veteran, '41-'43. For crying outloud, the Germans were murdering Russian civilians by the MILLIONS during those years, intentionally leaving POWs to die of exposure, executing card-holding communists and Jews captured on the spot.... the list goes on. Peiper is damned lucky that he was treated by the highest standard of civilized conduct that such a man as he could hope for. -Jon C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.69.153 ( talk) 07:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Richard Gallagher(The Malmedy Massacre, pg.128-129)Van Roden denied that he had said that any prisoners had been struck in the testicles, let alone that their testicles had been permanently damaged. The allegation appeared in the February, 1949 issue of The Progressive.
I have now written an article on the French Wikipedia on the same topic, but I have expanded it quite a lot. -- Lebob-BE 22:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now expanded that article quite a lot, mainly translating my fr version. However, since I am not a native English writter, a thorough review of what I have written would be welcome. -- Lebob-BE 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I have reworked this article, I wonder whether the factual accuracy banner is still justified for this page. By lack of contrary opinion, I will remove it by the end of this week. -- Lebob-BE 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently much of what was done here was by editors that do not have English as a 1st langauge as the sentence construction and choice of verbage is exceedingly strange. I am not disputing any of the core material but this sure needs some serious copy edit. Tirronan 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected this to the best of my ability while trying not to change anything. Please check to make sure I didn't change anything so as to change the article from the intent. Please feel free to change anything that doesn't meet your requirments. Humbly Tirronan 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You are most welcome! One point that your article missed was the fact that had this trial taken place in America it would have been thrown out of court for gross misconduct by the prosecution. Evidence obtained in the manner that it was is a gross violation of American Jurisprudence. I feel that most of the accused were guilty but our laws pertaining to how a trial must be run are very clear. While I personally feel that most of them should have been shot for war crimes, the law should have been respected and apparently it wasn't. Tirronan 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposal to rename the article Dachau International Military Tribunal to be Dachau Military Tribunal, deleting "International". Please review and give your opinion at the move proposal on that Talk page. -- Jdlh | Talk 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Of 75 defendants, 73 were found guilty, 1 innocent. What happened to the last one? Clarityfiend 21:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, the "Bill O'Reilly on Malmedy" virus is infecting this article, too. An editor just added a section to this article about Bill O'Reilly's factually incorrect statements about the Malmedy massacre in October 2005. I believe that this content does not belong in this article, and I've deleted it. Reasons:
So, I think a story about Bill O'Reilly doesn't belong in an article about the Malmedy massacre trial. Where it really belongs is in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Thus I've deleted it. If there's disagreement, let's discuss it here and see if we can reach a consensus. Looking forward to your comments. -- Jdlh | Talk 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A young and ambitious Senator in search of publicity, Joseph McCarthy, had obtained from the subcommittee’s chairman authorization to attend the hearings. Apparently, McCarthy, who felt that his senatorial career was fading, had decided to seize the opportunity for publicity
Unwarranted speculation on McCarthy's motives. Or did he actually tell witnesses that he was in search of publicity? If so, why use "apparently" in the second sentence?
A little later, McCarthy started the witch-hunt that made him famous
"Witch-hunt" is obviously a loaded, biased term. He claimed to exposing Communists, not witches. 190.10.6.47 ( talk) 15:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There are few characters in American history this side of Aaron Burr more derisive then Joe McCarthy, unfortunately some of that bleeds into this article apparently. However finding good sources that discuss him with less loathing isn't something very easy to do. One could make a case that "Witch-hunt" which is an American term for seaching for something you are going to find regardless of fact would be a fairly accurate description of what was in fact happening. Tirronan ( talk) 17:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Major problems with the tone overall, actually, not just in that section. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The SS should have been exterminated like cockroaches without all this pissing about. Wasn't that Churchill's view ?-- Streona ( talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Malmedy massacre trial's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "MacDonald":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
US soldiers had regularly murdered unarmed Axis POWs throughout the Italian and Normandy campaigns, long before the Malmedy massacre took place. 86.148.205.150 ( talk) 15:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
"The commission did not exonerate the defendants or absolve them of guilt and it endorsed the conclusions General Clay issued in the particular case of Lieutenant Christ. In summary, Clay had written that "he was personally convinced of the culpability of Lieutenant Christ and, that for this reason his death sentence was fully justified"
From the context, one can infer that Lieutenant Christ was a defendant in the trial. He worthy of being singled out at the end of the article, but not at the beginning where individual defendants are introduced. It is my opinion that something explaining who Lieutenant Christ was and why General Clay was convinced of his culpability is in order. Regards, David 4.14.43.226 ( talk) 14:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)