Rhein wiesen lager

Just because it is hard to prove either way doesn't prove your point I still stick to my also unproveable point that executed men are not lined up in a row with their weapons.

 

That's agreed. The deaths occurred elsewhere. An additional thought- the
USAMHI Law-WarCrimes have photos- this means that US forces were there at the scene but no explanation of why- and why the photos have never been released. Not proof but something not right about this.


http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/mil_hist_inst/l/law5a.asc

 

Interesting other version;

Col. Joachim Peiper testifies before the American Military Tribunal at Dachau in the Malmedy Massacre proceeding

 

Thanks for the link- that certainly adds another perspective- what conclusions can be drawn from this?

 

that most of the info relating to this incident is probably confusing the dachau incident with Webling - either deliberately or not

 

If the deaths occured elsewhere, then without an confession by one of the participants, or a credible on site witness it is impossible to prove or disprove the assertion of a war atrocity occuring.

Enclosed is a American civil war photo od sead soldiers lined up, were they also the subject of a war atrocity?

 

An interesting comparison with the photo and what might have been in 1945. Wasn't there a Civil War photographer who staged the dead for photo shoots? Is that what might have happened at Webling?

 

This photo was taken by Alexander Gardner, and is now considerd a staged photo for dramatic effect. Which goes to show that the truth may be out there, but there is always a 'canceer man' playing games with the facts.

 

Why? At that stage of the war, the quality of SS troops was nothing like the myth of a few years earlier. If they walked into a well-laid ambush, that would perhaps explain it.

Right, whoa. One of the links says "conjecture", the other looks like an attempt at trolling. Neither are cast-iron evidence.

One minute you say there is a 'lack of evidence', then that there is 'evidence of something'.
Can I ask why you appear to have a bee in your bonnet about this particular incident?

 

If they have never been released, how could they appear in After the Battle?

 

Excellent. Do you have the link for this? Are the photos in this and further details?

 

Yep, I think so- ATB#27-
After the Battle - Magazines > Issues 26-50
Actually got that issue upstairs somewhere- I'll have a look later.

 

Ok. My scanner's currently knackered, I just spent half an hour manually typing out the full article only to lose it when my account timed out.
Anyone got the article and a scanner that works?
I'll make one point though; only ONE German witness was mentioned in the article, and both the photos and facts are a mass of contradictions.

 

Ok, so until we get a copy of the article, we're going to have to use other sources, loath as I am.
The 42nd Div. war history is online-
Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library : Compound Object Viewer
I haven't read it myself yet.
There's another old thread on AHF Axis History Forum • View topic - Alleged massacre of POWs at Webling
Which gives the names and ages of the German dead. The point is also made that they appear to be a kampfgruppe rather than a regular unit; most of them are middle-aged.
One thing keeps puzzling me though; why are people so fixated on one alleged incident involving SS? The point is also made that the SS officer himself was quite probably involved in war crimes earlier in the war, though it can't be proven conclusively.
Andrew Mollo's article only mentions one eyewitness, yet we keep hearing of "multiple eyewitnesses".

 

It's a grenade to throw back ...

 

Thanks for the links. I couldn't find anything on the Webling incident on the first but the second was a facinating discussion thread on the incident. I suspect that there will be no definite answer on this. As for fixation on one incident involving the SS let's move on. That's the second time I've agreed with you now. It was never my intention to sidetrack from the origins of this thread.
Were the Rheinwiesenlagers a deliberate act of abuse and a war crime and when we say Rheinwiesenlager we mean the camps along the Rhine administered by the US army and the 106th Division. At no time am I implying that any British POW camps replicated the conditions of the Rheinwiesenlagers!!!!!!! Although I'd like to ask Historian on his views about the British run Senneglar camp if that's appropriate to the thread. Apart from accusations levelled there I believe the British acted in a manner that was in contrast to the US POW camps. There's a question implied there of why.

 

Rhineman,
I wasn't getting at you personally, I just wondered why this one incident seems to excite so much interest. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything.
I must try and get that article uploaded btw.
I agreed that conditions were chaotic at Rheinwiesenlager, but IMPO that was due to the prevailing conditions in Germany generally; the entire infrastructure had been bombed flat, and the number of PoWs taken vastly exceeded expectations because the Allies didn't anticipate so many German units heading westwards to escape the Russians. The Americans didn't have the manpower or resources available to instantly construct suitable accommodation, and again IMPO it's a bit naive of people to think they could have.
I don't believe there was any official policy regarding mistreatment of prisoners at these camps. It probably happened on an individual level and was exacerbated by overworked and harassed officers trying to do 20 things at once.
I have a book called Letter of a Lifetime by Franz Munchow in which he describes being in the Rhine camps. He mentions being constantly hungry due to lack of food, and both the American's attitude as well as his own, but no cruelty that I remember reading. In fact, he refers to "the hungry camp" about three or four times before the end of the book.
I found this blatant revisionism on British camps. I think 'crock of shite' covers it.
HRP: HOW ALLIES TREATED GERMAN POWs
The "slave labourers" in British camps didn't work on weekends, were on the same ration scales as British troops, and were entitled to DOUBLE rations to rebuild them in the event of an escape and recapture. They could only work a fixed amount of hours a week, and could only be used in the first place if no local British labour was available and the trade unions agreed. From 1946 they were allowed to have British currency, and the money they earned that was put away for them in official accounts was credited to them on repatriation. The poor bastards....

 

The only thing I can find on Sennelager in Hansard is this-
Prison Camps (Conditions) (Hansard, 3 June 1946)
All the other entries refer to the WW1 camp there.
This is about allegations in other camps-
GERMAN INTERNEES AND PRISONERS OF WAR. (Hansard, 30 May 1946)

 

full reps coming your way when I can, gordon..keep up the good thread posting, as it's gonna be a long year..me thinks!...

 

Cheers Ray.
I'm trying to find a copy of that Observer Magazine for 26/5/46 that had the accusations in it that I don't have to pay for.