Malmedy Massacre Trial - plus, a thank you to Bill O'Reilly

O'Reilly has undermined American Troops twice. The American men (boys) who were massacred at Malmedy have had their deaths spat on by the Conservative pundit.

But, he does bring up a topic that's worth remembering at this time in history - the Malmedy Massacre of December 17, 1944.

I highly recommend you take the time to read this account of the event from thehistorynet.com.

The following quote is by Joachim Peiper, the leader of the troops who carried out the Malmedy Massacre. (pictured)



Peiper stood trial in Dachau Concentration Camp where he was found guilty by the American military for his crimes at Malmedy. However, his death sentence was never carried out and he was released in 1956.

The entire incident might have gone unnoticed but for the presence of an American journalist in Malmedy that day.

I have been to Malmedy and stood at that crossroads. I'm just a peace loving American Joe, never exposed to the real horrors of war. Though I was born well after WW2, I will never forget the feeling of awe that this region inspired. Nor will I forget the kind local man in his 60s who, seeing myself and my friend at the site, invited us for a beer in a local tavern. He was overcome with gratitude toward us. My French was not very good, but the wonderful soul never stopped thanking us for saving him and his family. He broke into tears at least twice trying to recount his stories for us. We were all gripped by the reality of what happened at Malmedy, Bastogne, and the surrounding region. And, we mourned in our victory being won at such a high price.

As we ponder and react to the Haditha Massacre, let us learn from history. Where the Nazi's made excuses for their atrocities, let us stand tall, accept blame, seek forgiveness, and demonstrate repentance for this shameful event so we can show the world that America, despite our many flaws, are good, humane, and charitable people after all.

We cannot change our new history. But, we CAN direct our future. In fact, we are the only ones who can save ourselves.

==

PS - Learning from Bill O'Reilly's vitriol, hubris, and sedition is like making lemons into lemonade! Kudos to Bill for helping us remember the lives of these WW2 heroes. Now is the perfect time to examine what a real military massacre is like and what Nazi apologists sounded like in 1945.

:kick:

The only way the battle of the bulge could of met its operational objectives was if it used speed and surprise to force the wedge in the allied lines.

Taking care of hundreds of prisoners would of taxed his forces and slowed the assault and increased the chances of failure.

It was easier to shoot them and push on. A cold, Nazi calculation.

Plus, they were well into enemy territory and had no infantry with them to deal with the prisoners.

However, the massacre was preceeded by a partially successful escape attempt. It's also possible that the ensuing response provoked the Germans into a rage. That's not an apology, it's just a fact. All of the soldier accounts from those who escaped support the theory. It's possible the massacre was not the result of an order.

and they were expected to be fanatical. The SS also murdered women and children in a town (I do not remember the name) during the Battle of the Bulge, as they had done so willingly, in many other places in Europe. Peiper also served a great deal on the Eastern Front, and was known for his hardened approach to the enemy. While there may not have been a direct order, on the spot, to kill those men at Malmedy, I believe that it was understood, that with all of his objectives such as capturing key roads and bridges, and even securing fuel (they did not have enough of their own for even the planned objectives) taking prisoners was not an option they wanted, and that makes it a war crime, pain and simple. I know you are not defending him, but I do not like the fact that it took Peiper so long to finally meet his justice.

But this is nothing new to say.

There are many, many war crimes such as Malmedy done thruout war. Yes, there are criminals such as Peiper, who should be called for their actions, but the real lesson is that because these things happen, it should only remind those that war is not something to blindly rush into which is exactly what happened in Iraq. Iraq is not another World War II for the US as it is not a great liberation - Saddam represented no threat to hearth, home or civilization which is what the war on Fascism represented. Any historian could have predicted Haditha, maybe not the time or place, but the fact such an event would occur given the very real nature of war. The sad fact is that this is also not the first time, several attacks in Afghanistan appear to have been done without proper need as well as crimes at Abu Ghraib.

Given that the Bush Administration took this as the sole option when the evidence at the time decisively indicated that a military intervention would destabilize the region and require long term committment of US troops the blame rests squarely on them. It becomes not only tragic, but an ongoing crime against humanity because they conspired to lie to the US public about the need to go to war and because they did so for reasons which had nothing to do with the best interests of the US, but with the interests of a monied few.

Period. It's citizens wasn't a concern.

Or rather, to me that is not the singular cause. It was much more than that. Saddam had already made a deal to Bush which would have given essentially full access to the oil for Bush's friends without the uncertainty and risks associated with waging war.

Rather, I think it had to do with an ultra-nationalistic (ego-centric) view of the US which they felt placed it above all other countries. "We're the super power and we should get the respect we need." Iraq was the weak kid on the block and essentially considered lacking in sovereignty because it has consistently shown an inability to defend its borders and thus should be controlled by the US who because we're the most powerful are thus the most deserving. The conquest of Iraq is nothing more than an outgrowth of the same sense of entitlement that this administration has shown in domestic politics.

So, yes, oil is one part of it, access to markets in the Middle East is another, but power and control are the primary motivators. The other items were really selling points to the primary focus of establishing US dominance and are the bones thrown to the corporations to obtain their support. The Bush Administration (and the PNAC/Neo-Con groups) feel there is some additional sense of economic value gained by the US due to fear (they call it prestige) of the US military prowess though given China's and India's growing success at the expense of the US which is being drained by these small wars shows such a strategy is illusionary and short sighted. Essentially the world has for the most part moved on past such overt examples of nationalistic sovereignty and do not judge the value of the US by the same standards the PNAC members do.

On Edit: Essentially the Bush administration and the neo-Cons in general takes an old-fashioned Westphalian view point of the world, as evidenced by their disdain of the UN and other shared global instruments of discussion and cooperation.

L-

Your post is why I read and check DU all the time.

well written, a new look @ things, and talent.

I was in Germany in 1988 and ex german soldier wanted to so much tell all us why
war is a waste and doesn't get anything done .... his english was so so .... but the
bullet scar on his chest and his tears said it all.

For a Harvard educated man like O'Reilly to so distort history for Fox news' political
aims is beyond contempt.

Really? Wow!

.... he knows he is playing a part in the Fox News production.

After all he is looking out for the little folks.

I draw the same satisfaction from posts at DU and I'm happy to hear this has piqued your interest.

Peace.

Intelligent citizens already know of what really happened at Malmedy.

Billy-boy was already aware of what happened there or should have. And he had plenty of opportunity to apologize for the first time he said it.

That he said it again and in this context is beyond depravity. Even if he had his facts straight in the first place, NOTHING justifies the killing of unarmed prisoners or civilians.

They need to construct a new circle of Hell just for him.