Talk:Joachim Peiper

Bastille Day factor?
It has been commented in at least one book (which I read in 1990s) that discusses his death that 14 July 1976 was Bastille Day, the French national day. While I acknowledge the coincidence, I wonder if it was quoted as a possible factor in the murder by police? He had been receiving a series of death threats over a period which could have given a politically motivated murder time to be plotted.Cloptonson (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nitpick
One of the photo captions - 'Tiger I tanks of the 1 SS Panzer Corps Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler close to Villers-Bocage (June 1944)' - doesn't quite make sense. I SS-Panzer Korps was, obviously, a corps headquarters. In Normandy it commanded two fighting divisions, 1st SS-Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte' and 12th SS-Panzer Division 'Hitler Jugend'. By 1944, Tiger tanks did not serve in panzer divisions, but in special battalions attached to corps headquarters, to be sent where needed. I SS-Panzer Korps' Tiger battalion was Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101. If the Tigers are from that unit, the number 231 on the second tank means they are part of Obersturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann's 2 Kompanie, which did fight British 7th Armoured Division at Villers-Bocage. Wittmann is a well-known figure, but the picture does not have much to do with Jochen Peiper. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Communist publication?
I believe it's more appropriate to classify L'Humanité as a Left publication. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Recognition
I would like to remove this section as redundant - the commendations are listed in the body of the article. Further, the explanation of the nickname "Blowtorch" is not consistent with what appears earlier in the article.

Compare

Recognition
His leadership of the Sd.Kfz. 251 armored half-track battalion in the Third Battle of Kharkov earned the unit the nickname Lötlampenbataillon or "Blowtorch Battalion", which resulted in his receiving the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. Three days after his actions on 6 March 1943, he received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Twelve days later, Peiper demonstrated his military skill when he led his unit at full speed through Russian positions in a surprise attack on Belgorod, causing the surprised Russians to flee. Oberführer Theodor Wisch, divisional commander of the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, recommended him for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, which he was awarded on 27 January 1944.

Rescue of the 320th Infantry Division
[Pieper] developed the tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides while advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. Peiper's unit gained the nickname the "Blowtorch Battalion" as a result. Another source, however, reported that the nickname derived from the torching and slaughter of two Soviet villages where their inhabitants were either shot or burned.

I would like to remove the Recognition section, unless there are objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and remove section "Recognition" K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Agte
Agte is used throughout in an uncritical fashion. I have not read the book, but here's a 3rd party review, which gives an idea of the overall tone. It should be noted that Agte is closely associated with HIAG; he was (is?) the publisher of HIAG's periodical Der Freiwillige (De wikipedia) and is the current owner of Munin Verlag GmbH, which (according to the German wikipedia) is a right-wing extremist German publishing company.


 * In 1934, during the annual Nuremberg Rally, Peiper was promoted to SS-Sturmmann and later gained the attention of Heinrich Himmler. Himmler convinced him to enlist in the SS-Verfügungstruppe ....


 * He developed the tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides while advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. Peiper's unit gained the nickname the "Blowtorch Battalion" as a result.


 * Exploiting the confusion among the enemy, the battalion advanced on Leninskij and broke the last resistance. By an immediate advance, he inflicted heavy losses on the enemy which was fleeing through open fields. The battalion destroyed one T-34, six guns 7.62 and captured 300 horses. Three sledge columns were routed. The enemy casualties amounted about to anywhere from 800 to 900. SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper has distinguished himself in all these fights by a sensible command of his battalion and personal bravery and has proven himself worthy of the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold.


 * Peiper had just started writing a book about Malmedy and what followed.


 * Twelve days later, Peiper demonstrated his military skill when he led his unit at full speed through Russian positions in a surprise attack on Belgorod, causing the surprised Russians to flee.

I would like to remove Agte entirely. Please let me know if there are any concerns.K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am repeating my earlier comment. Generally speaking, removal of sources does not help. You run the risk of getting yourself into an edit war. The editors on Wikipedia foremost have an obligation to present information in a WP:NPOV way. If you feel that information derived from a questionable source gives undue weight to a specific topic or viewpoint, the concern is better addressed by finding a counterbalancing source, putting the information into context, and adding their viewpoint to the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about adding "According to Patrick Agte, a right-wing publisher and author, who is closely associated with the Waffen-SS veterans organisation HIAG, Piper had just started writing a book..."? (Similar treatment to what's offered in WP:RS page - Dealing with biased or opinionated sources) -- K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It also mentions the bright line that needs to be passed for reliability first. ie. "normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking". Does Agte even pass those? ( Hohum  @ ) 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, he is not known for these. His work, which is being cited in the article, has been referred to as hagiography in
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have personally no objection to the removal of all references to Agte from this article as he cannot in my view be regarded as a reliable source. The only question I could see may concern sentences for which Agte is the only cited source. But even there Danny Parker's book could offer alternative sources. Just be aware that this removal could raise questions from other editors as you will notice if you read the archive page of this discussion. --Lebob (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've obtained some feedback on the Reliable sources noticeboard, with two down votes: Agte. With Lobob's comment above, plus another inquiry that was posted today, that makes 4 down votes total.

Coincidentally, I recently got a copy of Parker's work on Peiper, and here are some comments based on cursory review (did not have a chance to consult it in detail):


 * Himmler convince him... - neither here nor there, but could be part of 'hagiography' (suggest removing)


 * "Blowtorch battalion" nickname -- Parker calls the nickname 'odious' (or something similar) and cites another SS-man's testimony that Peiper was 'too eager to follow orders to burn down villages'; nothing about 'developing a tactic' (suggest removing Agte's cite altogether, and replace with Parker, which I can add to the article)


 * Confusion among enemy - dubious claim again, suggest removing


 * Book about Malmedy - not relevant since he never wrote it; suggest removing

In general, I believe that articles about high-profile and/or controversial historical figures such as Peiper should especially adhere to the MilHist guidelines on using reliable secondary sources from reputable historians. Since Agte fails this test decisively, I believe there's a strong case to remove his book altogether to strengthen the integrity of the article.

Feedback or suggestions? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would use Parker's book to cross-check Agte's comments and also to replace his cited passage's with more objective ones where you can; following MisterBee's comments above. But wait one more day to see if anyone objects. Kierzek (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Since it appears that there are no further comments, I will proceed with cleaning up sourcing to Agte where I can. Where Agte is commingled with other sources, I will add tag. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Extensive quoting
There are two quotes that are citing from primary sources quite extensively, looking like a WP:QUOTEFARM and also giving undue weight to this content. I would like to convert them to a narrative with key points.


 * The medal's citation described the fierce fighting:

"In Stawerowka the battalion was ordered to take Zigderowka. The mission was executed by night against heavy resistance and an enemy battalion was routed, four 7.62 guns, an infantry gun, 10 mortars and many machine guns and hand guns being captured and destroyed. Peiper advanced immediately towards Kasatschij Maidan, encountered an enemy battalion on the march and executed a hasty attack. Here, he inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and took Kasatschij Maidan. From here Peiper prepared his battalion for the attack on Jeremejewka, attacked it at dawn against heavy resistance and took Jeremejewka. Exploiting the confusion among the enemy, the battalion advanced on Leninskij and broke the last resistance. By an immediate advance, he inflicted heavy losses on the enemy which was fleeing through open fields. The battalion destroyed one T-34, six guns 7.62 and captured 300 horses. Three sledge columns were routed. The enemy casualties amounted about to anywhere from 800 to 900. SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper has distinguished himself in all these fights by a sensible command of his battalion and personal bravery and has proven himself worthy of the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold."


 * The official Waffen-SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps ("The Black Corps"), described Peiper's actions in Karkhov thus:

"In preparation for the attack on Kharkov, on his own initiative SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper twice seized bridgeheads which proved of decisive importance in the advance of attacking forces. [...] Nevertheless, SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper was the master of the situation in all its phases. [...] Every officer and man of Kampfgruppe Peiper had the feeling of absolute safety. Here a man was thinking and caring for them, made his decisions quickly, and issued his orders with precision. These decisions and orders were often bold and unorthodox, but they were issued from a sovereign command of the situation. Everyone sensed the intellectual work and the instinctive safety behind this. Of course, the commander also had soldier’s luck. The unconditional trust of his men, however, has it basis in something else, namely the feeling that a born leader is in command, one filled with the highest sense of responsibility for the life of every single one of his men, but who is also able to be hard if necessary. But always the orders and measures stem, not from clever deliberation, but rather from a personality whose heart, brain, and hands are the same."

Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Since it appears that there aren't any objections, I will go ahead and rephrase. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Parker
At another editor's request (please see User_talk:K.e.coffman), I replaced Agte cites with Parker. Please let me know of any comments or concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good edits and npov presentation. Kierzek (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Age of death? 61 or 66?
I have seen two separate sources recently state the age of Joachim Peiper when he died, was at 66 years of age. The information on this wiki entry lists he was 61. Can anyone help confirm without a doubt on how old he was during his passing? One source dates back to 2010, so that information might just be outdated, and 61 is the accurate age. I just don't want to spread false information, even when dealing with something as minor as age of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarijx (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Where Peiper Went to Officer Training School
This article states that Peiper went to the Bad Tölz SS officer training school in Braunschweig. This is incorrect. Bad Tölz and Braunschweig are two different locations that are many miles apart. Bad Tölz is in the extreme south of Germany. Braunschweig is in north central Germany. There was an SS officer training school in both locations. Peiper went to the school in Braunschweig. My source for this information is the book Jochen Peiper by Patrick Agte, page 11. It’s true that Agte is a notorious apologist for Nazis, but, he can be relied upon when it comes to basic factual information such as where Peiper went to officer training school. I will now attempt to make my first time ever edit within the body of a preexisting article in Wikipedia. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, April 10, 2017 Stephen W. Richey (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Peiper's Age at Death
In answer to the posting above regarding confusion about Peiper's age at death, he was born in 1915 and died in 1976. Doing the arithmetic, he was 61 years of age when he was incinerated by his house burning down on top of him. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, 10 April 2017 192.230.163.162 (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Why Was My Contribution Deleted?
Will someone do me the courtesy of explaining to me why my contribution that Peiper went to officer school in Braunschweig, not Bad Tolz, was deleted? Signed, Stephen W. Richey, April 12 2017 Stephen W. Richey (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Okay, everybody, I just made a second attempt to edit the text in order to remove the false statement that Peiper went to the officer school in Bad Tolz when in fact he went to the officer school in Braunschweig. The difference this time is that I used Parker for my source, NOT Agte. Presumably, my new choice of source will make my contribution more palatable to the powers that be. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, 12 April 2017 Stephen W. Richey (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not deleted, just reverted back to a prior WP:RS source; now, that you used Parker for the change, it is okay. Just cleaned it up a bit as to format; btw - this article uses d/m/y and sfn format for the cites. I don't watch this article on a regular basis anymore, so for any other queries, I leave it to others. Kierzek (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Every time Dietrich was buried, Peiper showed up
"He was often seen at the funerals of personalities such as Meyer, Dietrich and Paul Hausser." Surely he wasn't seen more than once at each funeral?

"Peiper assisted the efforts of these organizations..." What organizations?2A02:AA1:1012:8DD1:B183:9FDD:69E8:7C71 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Was Joachim Peiper still dedicated even after the war?
It's said that Joachim was placed into the Party via Himmler He also never joined HIAG after the war but kept contact with them, probably assuming he was keeping in touch with his friends ect.

Reverted edits.
I've made some pretty uncontroversial edits which are mostly about grammar, style, etc. Diffs below:

Reducing repetition:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joachim_Peiper&diff=1045681959&oldid=1045681786

Consistent use of unit names, removing claim of glory hound in lead which doesn't summarize what's in the article.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joachim_Peiper&diff=1045681507&oldid=1045680996

I've been reverted with edit comments as follows:
 * "Spell out the facts, Br. English, per the instructions"
 * (my response): "British English tag is about variant of English (US, UK, etc.) per WP:ENGVAR not an instruction to translate all terms to English"
 * "Get over yourself, glorifying Nazis? Whoa!"
 * "Dumbing down is an edit war game. What are you about?"

Perhaps the IP editor can explain their rationale? Hopefully it's misunderstanding, but the insult about glorifying Nazis is both inaccurate, and offensive.(Hohum @ ) 21:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll reply to you, shortly.
 * reply

Thanks. 2601:240:E181:E880:6824:3442:ECB0:9EE5 (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Did he fathered children?
Was he a father himself? 2003:F5:CF0A:75B7:51C9:BCE9:611C:45B2 (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Inexperienced?
“ In November 1943, the LSSAH) fought in battles at Zhytomyr, in Ukraine. In the course of battle, the inexperienced Peiper replaced the regiment's dead commander”

I get it he wasn’t a very nice man, but inexperienced?? This article used to be biased in his favour as some sort of mythical combat legend. Now, some anti-factual wannabe historian is painting him as Private Gomer Pyle. Do better! Bias either way is poor. 24.69.20.123 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Right-wing Americans" called Nazi sympathizers in this article: That is beyond OFFENSIVE
In the controversial section "Nazi idolatry", I did a three-word minor edit, just to make the article's text less inaccurate and obnozious. Peiper was a murdering scum, and I propose that no genuine "right-wing American" would disagree with that summary, knowing his history and true record. Peiper represents the SS military wing of the arrogant murdering monstrosity that was Nazi Germany. I changed "right-wing American" to the more appropriate and accurate "neo-Nazi American". I also changed the phrase "practised by right-wing organisations" to "practised by certain right-wing organisations". Note the European/UK spelling of practised and organisations, not that I care. But whoever made these BIASED and OFFENSIVE statements may not be aware of their seriousness. To inform our probable European editor of the long-standing political landscape in America, the predominance of U.S. military veterans from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam---especially in their later years (say, from the 1980's forward)---would identify as some form of "right-leaning" or "right-wing" if pressed to choose, depending on the fairness of the definition of "right-_____" presented. This typically tends to mean holders of traditional American values and Judaeo-Christian ethics, Contistutional freedoms and the personal values of hard work, faith, and community support. To link these men and women and their families and their political support with Nazis is supremely biased and uncalled-for; again, perhaps written by someone in good faith who does not know what they are talking about. If there is a Nazi sympathizing artist producing some form of his or her "art", and it gets around on the internet, and some lazy officer or non-com at the Pentagon took a short-cut and used something off the internet without running its source completely to ground, they are guilty of just being as lazy and stupid as the average person out there in the world looking for some digital image to enhance their writings or website or project, not of being Nazi sympathizers. And just because they did it when Donald Trump was President in 2019, does not make Nazis of American veterans, nor the active-duty personnel, officers, or commanders of the U.S. Army, nor the DoD, nor the President, nor any other common punching-bag of the ultra-leftist New York Times and the Washington Post newspapers. As a U.S. Army veteran, I have never met any veteran of any of our wars or peace-time who had any admiration for our enemies except for their toughness in battle and military prowess, not their murdering ways or political Socialism of any stripe. I am hoping that my three-word attempt to make this article section at least APPEAR to be more fair-minded will not be reversed or rejected by other Wiki editors, who should feel free to improve on it further, but not go back to the way it was. If it is reverted to what it was before, I will report this article section for bias. Mluklu7 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edit. You could have justified it with a couple of sentences though. I don't have the inclination to check, but it's just as likely that someone simply worded this badly; versus it being some "European editor" being malicious. Collegiate editing isn't a battle zone. (Hohum @ ) 23:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I did justify it more briefly in the box below the actual edit.  But I considered that the Talk page here might also benefit the topic by pointing it out.  Note that I invited anyone to improve on my edits further, only not simply revert them.  Please also note that I credited the editor---no matter who they were or where they were from---as probably acting in good faith, not being very aware of how their statements would appear on the American political landscape. Hardly an accusation of being "malicious".  On the other hand, the editor/author---again whoever they are---had little hesitation about accusing a ridiculously wide spectrum of the United States military with being either "Nazi idolaters" or "white supremacists" simply because someone in the communications or historical sections used a colorized photo of Peiper to represent the German military forces during the Battle of the Bulge.  I know their sources were a 2008 book and a 2019 couple of articles by two American newspapers, but I saw no personal assumption of a good faith error by Pentagon staffers on the part of the Wiki author in this section.  I could be wrong, but I looked carefully for it and couldn't find it as it stands now---"badly worded" or not.  "In the United States, Obersturmbannführer Joachim Peiper is an idol...."  "In the U.S. military, the idolatry of Obersturmbannführer Peiper penetrated the official publications...."  "...the DoD publication appeared to celebrate a Nazi war criminal...."  And I agree that collegiate editing is not a battle zone, but I have had far too many negative encounters with Wiki editors who seem to take the opposite view about editing, hence my "leaning in" on this just a bit more than I would otherwise. Mluklu7 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Leaning in" will normally get worse results than not. (Hohum @ ) 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the sentiment, but my involvement with certain seemingly OCD Wiki editors over the years has severely truncated my contributions and drained most of my advance of good will. I was the senior national editor of a full-sized old-fashioned newspaper for many years---a veterans' newspaper, historian and author of many historical articles.  I have dealt with some of the roughest killers of enemy troops on earth, and yet my worst experiences with other writers/editors have been some of the self-appointed self-anointed demigods of Wikipedia.  Wiki's only saving grace is that you also have some really stand-up men and women who know the backstory on some of these same twirps and seem to take pleasure in putting them in their place when it is necessary.  But the twirps prevent Wikipedia from securing a better quality (and quantity) of volunteer help in expanding and contributing articles---that and one or two of Wiki's own policies.  No one needs that kind of grief in volunteer work. Mluklu7 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)