Talk:Joachim Peiper/Archive 1

Untitled
The bulk of the text of this article is a direct copy and paste from, and may be a copyright violation. The tone is also unencylopedic. Wayward 07:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) I agree. The reference "Westemeier" is cited over and over again. In fact, it seems to be the only reference for the crucial claims. The author(s) of the article should think about publishing an English translation of "Westemeier" instead of providing it in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.222.35.6 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Critical Book on Malmedy
Please note the almost new book on the trial, written by an American, about the doubts of one of the US-lawyers attending the trial back then - INFORMING: Weingartner, J.J.: A Peculiar Crusade: Willis M. Everett and the Malmedy Massacre Trial. New York University Press, 2000) ISBN-10: 0814793665+ ISBN-13: 978-0814793664

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)


 * I've seen this suspicion voiced in published works, such as MacDonald's A Time For Trumpets. I think the comment should remain, but be rephrased as a suspicion voiced by historians, with suitable cites. Yaush (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (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.
 * He'd heard about Traves in 1962, while on holiday in St Tropez, and he bought property there in 1969. His employment prospects were limited after he lost (or left) his job in 1972.  The cost of living was high in Stuttgart.  --AndersW (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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: and on various Google results) --Colonel Cow 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * MG Reynolds also calls her Sigurd.

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.
 * Actually that is pretty well known. Germanophobes just fail to admit that the war crime allegations are lies. --41.151.77.78 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * Well said, just because something doesn't fit the image of usual anti-German atrocity propaganda doesn't mean that it isn't factually correct. The debate does however belong into the "Malmedy massacre" article anyway. Except of course for your statement that he wasn't present.--41.151.57.129 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2012 (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)
 * "quote from Peiper where he stated he was opposed to the mass killing of Jews or to the Shoah" - Well, perhaps there is a very good reason for the absence of that kind of statements. --41.151.57.129 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2012 (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". --HanzoHattori 07:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to ignore this? --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)

This is not a debating forum

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)
 * I guess that this bullshit would be greatly appreciated by the CODOH or the Institute for Historical Review. I won't elaborate much on the "During WWII, German forces and their hundreds of thousands of European comrades crossed several borders" which sounds profoundly stupid.  And I won't discuss more the "Some populations welcomed them, as in anti-Stalinist Ukraine" who lasted only a few weeks, i.e. until the German really showed in their behavior that they were regarding the Ukrainians as "Untermenschen".  I don't think the Germans have been much regretted in Ukraine when they had to leave because they got their asses kicked by the Red Army.
 * The fact is that what you're telling about the battle of Bulge shows a complete ignorance of what really happened there or that you are gullible enough to present the version of the former Waffen SS as the only possible one. Just two points:
 * Nobody ever claimed that men belonging to the Kampfgruppe Peiper killed civilians in Lanzerath or Malmedy. In fact 131 (this is the official number, there could however be more) Belgian civilians were killed in cold blood by mean clearly identifed as Waffen-SS in the area of Stavelot and Trois-Ponts.  These murders are well documented and have been perpetrated under the eyes of (sometime) numerous eyewitnesses.  And the Belgian court that juged 10 or 12 German SS in 1948 (if I remember well) did not rech different conclusions.  Furthermore, it this case, there was no doubt on "who had killed by whom".
 * The presence of Knittel in the area of Stavelot is a very well documented fact as well. In fact he had his HQ in the farm Antoine, on the main road that goes from Stavelot to Trois-Ponts and the mission of the men under his command was to regain the control over Stavelot and its bridge in order to restore a communication line between Peiper and his rear.
 * I don't really see what these considerations on the mistaken bombings of Malmedy by the USAF or the fact that Belgian citizen had to serve in the German Wehrmacht - and sometime against their will - has to do with Peiper story.
 * I you find it really important to change some details point about how may time Peiper went to school or from where his wife was originating, please feel free to do so. For the other points, I will keep the changes under close monitoring.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So where's the bullshit, lebob? Your bolshie wikipedia article? My discussion was in part an attempt to answer some other comments/questions already posted, such as did he go to 'college, was that really wife's name, what an 'adjutant's' duties were in a state police chief's office, etc. The relevance of Americans bombing Malmedy, destroying Stavelot, etc. is who was responsible for deaths of Belgian civilians, and a genuine question as to proof. US forces were responsible for the deaths of Belgian civilians and that is fact. I understand the Belgian government investigated, other investigators re-investigated affidavits made in the tribunal hearings, etc. and didn't find anything and so forth, such as 'eyewitnesses' claiming to have seen W/SS shooting 8 or 18 or whatever US POWs and buried them right there, only the US forces never dug up the site, and all sorts of similar 'bs.' And another genuine question is why Knittel was prosecuted along with KG Peiper's alleged atrocities in Stavelot when Knittel wasn't in KG Peiper or Stavelot, but headquartered in the Antoine farm--you missed my point, which was that some of the accused in the "Malmedy" tribunal were not even in the area. The counts of indictment related to the massacre of more than three hundred American prisoners "in the vicinity of Malmedy, Honsfeld, Büllingen, Ligneuville, Stoumont, La Gleize, Cheneux, Petit Thier, Trois Ponts, Stavelot, Wanne and Lutrebois" between December 16, 1944 and January 13, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge, as well as the massacre of hundred Belgian civilians mainly in the vicinity of Stavelot." And you didn't have to have been there or done that, and Peiper wasn't and didn't, just alleged to be part of a 'grand design.'  And then throw in irrelevant, unprovable, hearsay bs throughout the hearing about who was supposed to have done what on the Ostfront, which was not the business of a US tribunal, and was emphasized by the special-interest prosecutors for the Bolshevik propaganda.  As for Ukrainians being anti-Stalinist, they indeed were, and viewed the German forces as saviors when they weren't grabbing up souvenirs by the thousands to sell on eBay later, and accepted job offers in Germany by the hundreds of thousands, and refused to go back to Ukraine from west Germany after the war, or so the Ukrainians and the official records state; as for Waffen-SS from Belgium, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands etc. engaged against Bolshevik/Marxist attempts to take over Germany, (from at least 1917) the leading capitalist country of western Europe, that is indeed fact. And they won. Only gosh, we didn't like it a few years later in Berlin, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. W/SS Poetschke, alluded to as 'maybe' having given an order to shoot POWs if there was an order but kia in the last days, was a Belgian himself, point being German forces had nothing against Belgian civilians except partisans/terrorists. And Belgians indeed volunteered to serve in the German armed forces. I was in Germany 1946-49, and genuinely wonder why questioners are labeled 'revisionist' when in fact the problem being questioned at the time was just who gave the hundreds of Jewish activists, newly made US citizens so they could hold temporary commissions as US officers, any God-given right to organize and lay down the terms of, staff, 'investigate,' and make unfounded accusations against, hold 'tribunals' and convict persons as 'war criminals'? And keep it up for the propaganda value as 'fact' when it never was? And label neutral questioners as fascist or whatever? Peiper was one of some hundreds of highly competent and decorated German officers who fought from 1939 through 1945, and fought well and dutifully. And was then one of millions held by the special-interest war crimes people post-war as being a member of a 'criminal organization.' Why the mystique? And nothing "profoundly stupid" about German forces crossing borders--Great Britain, Commonwealth, France declared war on Germany twice--point is that some percentage of the populations welcomed them, most were not affected at all by Occupation forces in defensive positions, and some civilian partisans (communists) fought them. All the many French, Belgian, and Dutch I talked to who were affected by US/British actions profoundly wished our side wouldn't keep looting and blowing up their towns, bridges, rail, dams, and population 96.227.4.49 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just the same stupid nazi bullshit written by a drunk parrot. No answer needed as wikipedia is not a forum.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebob--precisely my point, your biased, unfactual, clumsy article is YOUR forum, not at all helpful or even accurate for the majority of searchers who simply want to know who the man was, what his accomplishments were, who convicted him as a 'war criminal' and why, what were the circumstances of his death? Your 'convicted war criminal'? or convicted as a war criminal in one of the highly contentious and controversial post-war proceedings by so-called 'military tribunals'???...choice of a military career influenced by his father, a WWI veteran, not 'career officer' but I repeat myself, and by the way the 'beautiful French counmtryside' he settled in is a most unlovely primitive backwater of the Haute Saone...even a simple Google would demonstrate that the witness called by the defense, an American major held as a POW by Peiper for some 90 hours before escaping, was Hal McCown, eventually a Major General. If you want to know the background of the witnesses the prosecution brought over and wined and dined at taxpayer expense, look them up. You might also check the well-documented statement by the lead Austrian Jewish US uniformed CIC man, who acknowledged that he told Peiper that he knew Peiper was always an honourable officer but after all, think of the headlines about convicting Himmler's 'adjutant.' My suggestion is stop watching so much History Channel, turn your poor effort over to somebody who knows something about the subject, can write, and is capable by background, experience and education of providing basic objective biographical information, and professional and courteous responses to the many needed corrections.– — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.118.64 (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I see the denialist bullshit coming from miles away. You just don't know nothing about Peiper and you sole purpose seems to spread the HIAG stuff on this article.  Peiper has not chosen a military career, he has chosen to make a career in the SS, which is radically different, as the SS was a criminal organisation.  And in his capacity of Himmler's adjutant, Peiper was very aware of this.  This explain his efforts since 1945 to hide this aspect of his person of of SS history since he remained with strong nazi convictions until his last day.  I have since long time followed you suggestion and turned my attention to somebody who knows the topic very well, i.e. Jens Westemeier.  This being said, since Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, you're of course free to bring changes where you want to this article provided you stay within the limits of WP:NPOV.  I hope that it will not be too much an effort for you to comply with this.  BTW, I have no access to History Channel --Lebob-BE (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear lebob whoever you may be...you haven't corrected your many inaccuracies yet that I have noted to you previously, such as the spelling of McCown, who by the way came to Germany after the war to be a witness FOR Peiper in the Dachauer tribunal US vs. Bersin, which record details the charges, names of the 'accused' (not 'defendants' as in regular proceedings), the fact of the Jewish background of the US prosecution members, that the 'accused' were brought before the tribunal as already guilty (these were not in any way 'trials' or courts-martial), the tribunal was merely a hearing of the quite evident falsities and irrelevancies such as who may have done what to whom on the Ostfront that the prosecution used for headlines--just publicity events, etc. etc. Peiper had indeed chosen a 'military career' as he was coming of age, and his father was in contact with his own former regiment to facilitate this, when the invitation came from the Leibstandarte, which was at the time neither a police nor a Waffen unit, but a showy guards unit modeled on British and others around the world. The SS, and a different combat organization, the Waffen SS under the German Armed Forces command, were not 'criminal organizations' until 1946, when so designated by the Allied war crimes people after the war. So how could Peiper possibly "know" as one of the 2nd lieutenant greeters and coat-hangers back in 1939 that the SS was a 'criminal organization'? And as you know, a few years later, the US and Brits were very glad to welcome Waffen SS veterans of less than former field grade rank in the newly constituted German Armed Forces, when they figured out the Bolsheviks were indeed the threat...and one of these Bundeswehr officers was Werner Sternebeck, who had been on the point in Kampfgruppe Peiper in the Ardennes. I have not the remotest connection with HIAG, except that with some $90 billion going from West (only) Germany to the Jewish state, HIAG campaigned for veterans' benefits due all veterans but NOT provided to Waffen veterans because of having been deemed 'a criminal organization' in 1946. And in which they were eventually partially successful. And what's that have to do with spelling Major Hal McCown's name correctly. Also, why would anyone but Bolsheviks/communists ascribe "strong Nazi convictions" to anyone for remaining against a communist takeover of the rest of Europe and proud of one's country? I am not aware that Peiper ever 'hid' anything, but he stated he was put off by some of the deliberate misstatements and distortions of Toland, Whiting, etc. and didn't care to give interviews. So, you were going to provide the Belgian investigation sources you talk about but don't give a reference to? Replying as a neutral academic editor with degrees in history, just correct your errors and present simple facts for on-line viewers, not aping Westemeier's peculiar slant.71.175.181.20 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are things that you do not like in this article, feel free to change them if you want, provided you have accurate and reliable sources sustaining your changes. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources?
I would like to see a source for the Belgium massacre. I also find the use of the word "murder" to be POV. Say that they were POWs and say that they were shot, that is all that should be required. The reader can make his or her own assessment based on their knowledge of the tactical and political situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.13.170 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You should find enough sources in this article. With respect to the wording I will leave it as you changed it although shoting POWs and civilians (including women and young children) in cold blood can hardly be called otherwise as "murder" without necessarily becoming POV.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment - NPOV
The section of the article dealing with Peiper's assessment violates NPOV. In particular, the use of certain connotative words seems inappropriate. Two examples stand out (my bolding):

and:

These sentences can easily be reworded to a standard that maintains NPOV. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has any objections and then I'll change them myself. - Winkbonzowink (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no comment on the first quotation. However I do not see any reason to change the second one as it reflects the reality and is based on a reliable source.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the second example is factually accurate. That's not in dispute. My concern is the use of language. "Whitewashing" is emotive and a better word or more words could likely achieve the same meaning without the same affect. - Winkbonzowink (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact the word "whitewashing" is the one used by Westemeier himslelf in his book. But as I am not a native English speaker I will not disturb me if you want to replace this word by another one that is less emotionally charged.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If "whitewashing" is the word used by Westemeier then that is even more support for it being changed. I'm sure his book promotes a thesis and doesn't just document of the facts. That's good to know, thank you. Winkbonzowink (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Westemeier promotes a thesis. Furthermore the wording "whitewash" used by Westemeyer is backed up by facts.  Finally, and after having thought about this again, I don't see any reason to change the word "whitewash" as it's precisely the one used by Westemeier and that this sentence is sourced.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead photo dispute
User:Mariaflores1955 has believes he owns this article and has resisted improvment by means of criminally abusing the revert function. He (she?) insists on retaining a grainy, low-quality image of an almost unidentifiable Peiper against a newly-released portrait-style photo of Peiper from the recently available German federal archives. Koalorka (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the proposed photograph:




 * Koalorka (talk) first of all, I am a woman. How many men with the name "Maria" do you know? The portrait you are repeatedly changing is one of the BEST known photos of Peiper (I bet that any WWII enthusiast knows this photo and nearly everyone can recognize him in it). It is also very high quality image compared to yours (600dpi to 72dpi respectively). The grainy effect that you referring to, is a texture surface paper on the original photograph. Your photo is not new, I have had in my collection for at least 20 years. The only correct statement from the paragraph above is that it indeed can be found in the German Federal Archives. Best Regards, Maria  Mariaflores1955 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot claim that the photo is the "best". How do you quantify this? Considered the "best" by who? "Best known"? According to who? I was not familiar with Peiper (who was a minor figure in the Waffen-SS relatively speaking) and could not identify the man based on the low-resolution image you provided and stubbornly insist on keeping. The image you propose is of a low resolution (a mere 369 × 546 pixels compared to 550 × 800 pixels), it is grainy, has a poor contrast ratio and the shading completely obscures the man's face making him indistinguishable from any other generic Nazi-era officer. Simply put, your image is totally useless as a portrait. Koalorka (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I said ONE OF THE BEST KNOWN PHOTOS OF PEIPER. Not best, but one of the most identifiable. It appears on the covers of quite few books for example:

1) Jochen Peiper: Commander, Panzerregiment Leibstandarte by Patrick Agte 2) KAMPFGRUPPE PEIPER: The Race for the Meuse by David Cooke 3) Jochen Peiper: Battle Commander, SS Leibstandardte Adolf Hitler by Charles Whiting (The photo is from the same series of images taken in Austria)

It was also produced as one the last Hoffmann postcards and was on cover of SIgnal magazine. Also, if you look on the internet, the image is featured on dozens of web-sites, including number of regional municipality web pages from the Ardenne region. So, it is very well known photo and definitely one of the most recognizable ones. As for your comment on the resolution: a mere 369 × 546 pixels compared to 550 × 800 pixels - that is a size of the photo in pixels NOT the resolution. That is, as stated before 600dpi compared to 72dpi respectively. You can see the image quality from its size in KB. Your large portrait is 41 KB and the photo posted by myself is 135 KB and much smaller. Finally, I don't have anything against your image, it is a nice photo that can be placed somewhere else in the article. There is a lot of space for both. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly isn't recognizable. Anyone not familiar with Peiper (99% of the internet population) will not be able to identify this man based on the poor image provided. The biography infobox image requires a portrait style photo with a clear view of the subject's face. I won't accept an inferior photo simply because it was YOURS when a superior image (for the purpose of this page) is readily available. I will make the wider community aware of this. Koalorka (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as always your opinion is subjective. Your only agenda is to sabotage the work of others and then you come up with outrageous claims as you just made in the paragraph above. I do not insist on keeping the image because is mine, but because it is a better known image and better representative of the subject of the article. For example, I thought your photos of Jodl, Himmler and Werner Ostendorff were much better than the existing images my friends and I supplied for the articles. Also, it is absolutely ridiculous for you to say that 99% of internet users would not be able to ID Peiper in this photo (read my previous posting!!). This is something that you can't back up and your reasoning sounds more and more desperate. In addition, there is not a rule that states that bio info-box image must be a perfect portrait of the subject... again this another of your silly interpretations. And please do make others aware of this dispute. I look forward to ensuing debate. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the current image to be much better. It's of more historical significance, more well-known, and the style of the image works better. I don't think that the proposed image is a very good replacement. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The current image is indeed better known than the other. Furthermore, if I am not wring, it is also the image that is on the ocver of Westemeier book on Peiper.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that only one user prefers the new image. I believe we have sufficient consensus. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The above photograph in my opinion is the best of the two - try and consider if you were entering them both for FP which one would be selected.

One where the subjects face is in shadow or one with the subjects features clearly visable ?

Sorry Mariaflores1955 YOU HAVE BEEN DOING SOME GOOD WORK but it this case I believe you are wrong Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The current one is more well-known. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not really a valid argument. I'm ingoring the historical background of the images and their popularity, and simply proposing an image more suitable for the purpose of a biographical infobox. Like I said, the existing photo shows an officer of the Waffen-SS... That's it. How de we know it's Peiper? What if the photo was mislabelled? There's no way of identifying the man. Koalorka (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, of course you're ignoring it, because the argument doesn't apply to your image but fully does to the current one. That the image "may not" apply to him is speculation and conjecture, has nothing to do with any valid argument. Verifiability is more important than truth - because this image is universally considered to be of Joachim Peiper, it is an image of Joachim Peiper. If it turns out it is not, we were still right in saying it was because we have references to say it is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Article protected
Because of the above dispute, I have protected the article so that only administrators may edit it. Please discuss which image should be used in the lead here, calm down a little and lay off the accusations. I have no opinion at this time, and the protection of the page with this image does not endorse the use of this image. If you are unable to reach a conclusion, I reccomend you request a third opinion or initiate a request for comment. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
As a biographer and military historian on wikipedia, I believe that the newly proposed photograph is better than the one used currently. As long as they are both free use, they can both be used in the article; the newest one is to be used in the infobox and the older, currently used one, can be used further down in the article. This is just my opinion, but it would give the article a better look. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Gaia on this subject. I feel that the better picture is the one suggested by Koalorka, as it is much clearer and has more of a portrait feel to it in comparison to the current photograph, which is grainy and more of a profile picture, thus making it difficult to identify the man in the photo. Therefore, my opinion is that the new photo replace the old one in the infobox, while the replaced photo should be moved further down in the article. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, these are some compelling arguments. I suppose I have to agree with Gaia - a portrait photograph would be better. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Following a request for additional opinions at the Military History wikiproject, I've also considered the options available. As the lead section image is the first that readers will encounter, it should be the image that best displays and illustrates the subject, in this case Peiper, to someone who has no prior knowledge. For me, the German archives photo is the better one to use over the Heinrich Hoffmann archive photo, as it is clearer (i.e. less blurry/grainy, and less shadow - although in both photographs Peiper's face is at least partially shaded), can be expanded to a greater size if readers are led to the image page, and shows the whole face, as opposed to a more-or-less profile shot. Although the Heinrich Hoffman image may have been more widely circulated in the past, I do not think it is the best image to be used first-up in the article. However, I have no objections to, and actively support, Gaia's suggestion that this image be included in the body of the article. -- saberwyn 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As long as the original photo remains within the article, I have no objections to the proposal established here. Cam (Chat) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the change of the lead image. The current photo is not only the best known photo of Peiper, but also the best photo -- PERIOD. Just seeing it, made me stay on the page and I wanted to learn more about the topic. I uploaded hundreds of photos here and I would not object to anyone who has a better quality lead image replaced it. I also believe that the user Mariaflores1955 made excellent contributions to many articles (As I see from the contributions history) and selected the best lead image for every article she started or helped get off the ground. Replacing them just because I found a photo of the subject somewhere, the way Koalorka did, is not right. The photos from the Hoffmann Archive are without the doubt the best known and best portraits made in Germany between 1933-1945. For anyone who does not know Heinrich Hoffmann, please read about him. As Maria points out, the current image is better quality, better known and better image overall. It is a large full body portrait and you can clearly see the face of Peiper and recognize him. I am sure you could ask her to crop it, so only the face is in view, if that is the main reason for wanting it replaced. Also, there is a shadow on Peiper's face due to the fact he wears a hat. In the new photo is even a bigger shadow. I strongly urge you NOT to replace the image and leave the current image the way it is. Bolekpolivka (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears the Bundesarchiv portrait is more suitable for the infobox with 7 users in favour of using it, and 3 against its inclusion. I will replace the Hoffman photo and place it further down the page. Koalorka (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ladies and gents, here we see the core of this dispute. It wasn't about quality, suitability etc. But one user's ego. Please don't waste anymore of our time... Koalorka (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just simply upload both pictures and place them in the article? There, problem solved. And the current lead photo of Joachim Peiper depicts him as a Sturmbannfuhrer, not an Obersturmbannfuhrer. And, by the way, typing with caps lock on doesn't make you sound angry (I believe a simple exclamation point will suffice); it just makes you sound like an idiot. EbolaRocks08 (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

POV Tag
I have placed this POV tag on the article because since the changes made by this article looks just as if it would have been written by the HIAG itself or by it secretary. By the way, Patrick Agte, who is the secretary of the HIAG is the main source of the changes made to the Article while sourced material that was less favorable to Peiper has been removed. This is an article devoted to Joachim Peiper, a convicted war criminal, and not to Sankt Joachim Peiper the white knight from the Waffen SS. --Lebob-BE (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps you are just another Belgian cry baby? Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.172.40 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is your only argument I will of course put back the POV Tag until I have rewritten this masterpiece of nazi propaganda. --Lebob-BE (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else disagree with the neutrality? If not I'm going to remove the tag. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is not a sufficient argument to remove this tag. In its current format this article is unabalanced and shows Peiper under the same light as the old buddies of the former Waffen-SS did.  This is mere SS propaganda and is far from fitting with wikipedia neutrality rules.  I am currently translating into English the wiki (fr) article which is much better than this one and closer to the historical reality.  Until I have finished and made the changes, the tag must stay.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much obvious POV pushing. You're clearly advocating from one side and not neutral yourself. I would love to see just one other person on Wikipedia disagree with this article's neutrality. Lt.Specht (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no POV pushing at all. In its current shape this article mainly reflects what has been written about Peiper by former SS circles and nazi apologists.  Almost nothing is said about his first years in the SS, his work as Himmler adjutant, and his campaigns in Russia and Italy.  It is not POV pushing to show the mere realty, i.e. that Peiper was first a nazi and that he remained a nazi until his last day.  If you want to remove this POV tag please come with suitable arguments.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article seems balanced. It does not glorify or excuse Peiper or the actions of his subordinates. Perhaps a paragraph mentioning the fact that he killed kittens with his bare hands would satisfy you? Because we all know Nazis were all ritual kitten killers... Koalorka (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I have removed the POV tag.  But you might find the article doesn't look like he was when you have posted your message a few hours ago.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After skimming through the "new changes" to the article, I'm going to have to ironically re-add the POV tag myself. The article is longer and more in-depth and that's wonderful, but most of the content is pretty one sided and what not. Referring to Himmler as the "Devil" is obviously not neutral, no matter what he did. The "Joining the nazi party" section has nothing about him joining the NSDAP at all; there are also many sources that refute the claim that he was ever a member, that should probably be added in the next section when it mentions his supposed "member card of the NSDAP". The article now seems to have a lot of ramblings about things that aren't even related to Peiper, such as "During the campaign of Poland Reinhard Heydrich also issued to the Einsatzgruppen the ordre to take action against the Polish Jews. Men of Peiper’s Waffen-SS unit, the Leibstandarte participated to such exactions as, for instance, in the Burzeum area.", Peiper was not in anyway related to these actions. Similar problems exist with the "On the Russian front" section. Also seems like Mr. Jens Westemeier's Joachim Peiper: A Biography of Himmler's SS Commander has turned into the sole source for the entire article. But can this even be considered a reliable source? The author himself considers the book to be revisionist, and is obvoiusly one sided due to the motives of him authoring it. A lot of the stuff in the article, such as Peiper's "NSDAP membership", can easily be refuted by using Westemeier himself, using the first biography that he wrote less than ten years before the second, Joachim Peiper (1915-1976): SS-Standartenfuhrer, with the same sources available to him. Using Westemeier for anything is just asking for trouble. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one can of course discuss as to decide whether this article is one-sided or not.
 * I agree that referring to Himmler as the “devil” may not sound neutral and I am ready to change it. This being said “The devil’s adjutant” is also the title of a book written by General Michael Reynolds  about Peiper and also one the title of one of the chapters of Westemeier’s book.
 * I can also change joining the nazi party into joining the nazi movement. After all, the SS was (or became after the long knifes night) the main organisation within the nazi party.  Furthermore I know that the question of Peiper being or not member of the nazi party is a long on-going discussion.  I didn’t elaborate much on it in the article but it is obvious, according to Westemeier’s book that he was.  The book shows a copy of Peiper’s member card as party member.  I also know that Peiper himself has always denied having being member of the nazi party but, on the other hand it is hard to believe that Himmler would have accepted within his staff somebody who was not member of the party.  However I cannot exclude – but this is not shown in Westemeier’s book or other documents I have read on Peiper – that his faith was more in the SS than in the nazi party.
 * The sentence "During the campaign of Poland Reinhard Heydrich also issued to the Einsatzgruppen the ordre to take action against the Polish Jews. Men of Peiper’s Waffen-SS unit, the Leibstandarte participated to such exactions as, for instance, in the Burzeum area.": I don’t say Peiper was involved in these actions. However Peiper always alleged he didn’t know about this.  Nevertheless what he said to Ernst Schäfer (and, by the way this does not come from Westemeier’ book) shows he was much more aware of some facts that what he claimed what happened during the war.  This is the reason why I have inserted this sentence.  It is hard (at least for me) that he could travel (as first adjutant) in Himmler train without knowing what was going on in Poland.  I however draw your attention that I didn’t write he knew what going going on.  I have left to the reader to draw its own conclusions.  In addition I also can hardly believe that during all his years within the Leibstandarte he never heard his comrades  speak about what happened and what they did in Poland.  While the whole Wehrmacht knew about it – and General Johannes Blaskowitz issuing official protests against the behaviour of the Einsatzgruppen – the SS officer Joachim Peiper would have been the only man in the whole third Reich who would never heard anything that.  This seems weird to say the least.
 * I assume that you did not get the opportunity to read the second version of Westemeier’s book. In his foreword he clearly explains why the second version of his book is completely different from the first one.  In a nutshell:
 * New sources were made available that show Peiper on a completely different way
 * he acknowledges he made a mistake as an historian:
 * "I had even involuntary helped to disseminate some of the classic Peiper myths. How could this happen to me? (…)  I hade made a very typical mistake as a historian writing a biography – I was entranced by my subject!  I was quite fascinated with Joachim Peiper’s ostensive military achievements, and took many sources without deliberation.  (…) I uncritically believed the life-lie of the “Grandfathers”, that “they have been honourable soldiers, who loyally served their oath of allegiance to their fatherland, of whom some day the grandchildren can be proud!”  I never suspected that I might be misled on purpose.  Like some other historians, as well, I was duped to a picture of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen-SS, and Peiper that was carefully constructed by SS apologists and the Erlebnisgeneration.  It was a bitter lesson I had to learn over the years during my research, that as a grandchild, one cannot be proud of this German Generation, who still today are denying their responsibility for the crimes of the NS-Dictatorship, and are mostly seeking the other side."
 * I have not doubt one could argue on Westemeier motivation when he decided to completely rewrite his first book on Peiper. I am even ready to agree that he is sometimes pushing very (and even too) hard to show that Peiper was a hardened nazi criminal.  I agree that even if he knew a lot of things Peiper was still not at the level of a Heydrich, an Eichmann or even a Höss.  However he was much more than a simple soldier like the others as he tried to make us believe, because he was close to the highest SS – and thus nazi – circles.
 * Furthermore I believe that a source like Agte who, to the best of my knowledge, is not even historian but is secretary of the HIAG, is even less reliable than Westemeier who is not only historian, but also Lieutenant-Colonel (Reserve) of the Bundeswehr.
 * All this being said, last but not least I would like to thank you (and the other contributors as well) for the time you have spend in setting right all the English mistakes I have left in this article. I am not a native English speaker and writer and I appreciate your patience and your effort very much. --Lebob-BE (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I read the latest version of the article and found it a trifle contradictory: particularly in relation to Peiper's military reputation and skills; all of which have tended to be lauded irrespective of the other - unsavoury - aspects. I know of no other Waffen SS officer who generates such controversy. Apologists and (Scra)giographers abound! But to be frank - not having read either version - I'm perturbed that an author(Westemeier) can write a biography from one perspective, and then 10 years later another from the exact opposite perspective: smacks of pressure from a certain source. Whiting's for example elaborates on HIS first book but remains consistent. But it is hardly history in the academic sense, but is at least fair IMO. To be a member of the Leibstandarte automatically brought early members in close contact with NSDAP party bigwigs, so doubtless...but in those days one NEVER voiced disapproval if one was smart. So the attitude "don't know, and don't want to know" was the order of the day 1934-45.

How many people(please read the works of Norman Finkelstein-son of a Shoa survivor-whom makes it clear that both Weisenthal and Weisal are frauds-in terms of personal Shoa involvment-and creative fabricators)know that a lot of re-revisionist History is being written more in line with immediate post-war works vis-a-vis Germans in WW2 with a view to squeezing yet MORE money out of them.

Mind you, several of the accepted seminal works of the German experience in WW2 were written by "Paul Carell" an ex-Nazi Party propagandist who switched horses most adroitly post war: so one needs must be cautious. However: I have a question:can any one produce a wartime picture of Peiper in uniform with the Nazi Party Badge displayed? I have seen NONE. Considering the Germans' penchant for showing every possible decoration on their uniforms,a curious omission. Both Hausser and Dietrich always wore theirs, as did many other W-SS officers who were members.

I must be one of the few that actually met a W-SS "veteran": Will Fey, whom we had as a Mess Guest(He was then a Bundeswehr Major)at Fallingbostel. He gave the impression Peiper - still alive then - was the bees knees militarily speaking, and was the least likely W-SS officer IHO to perpetrate war crimes: too much the Gentleman to all apparently. He did think Peiper could be reckless however: but not with the lives of his men unless there was no choice. Swings and roundabouts. I still think that Mike Reynolds gives the most balanced view: respectful of the man's military capabilies but aware that being Hitler's adjutant leaves Pieper's perspective in doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.64.226 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding some other content from other authors such as Reynolds would be a start, and indeed give the article a much more balanced view. Right now about 95% of the article is page by page using Westemeier's second biography. If I find some time I might put in some content from Reynolds and other authors. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Entering late into the discussion, I find the overwhelming preponderance of sources citing one author a bit unsettling. I am more disturbed by a review of Westemeier 's work by Jeffrey Rutherford who characterized the latest biography, as "at times, the book verges on a polemical attack on Peiper." Rutherford further writes, "The most pervasive problem is an author's identification with his or her subject. Westemeier admits to this problem with his first biographical study of Peiper; in this second investigation, he adopts a position of profound distaste that borders on condescension. He repeatedly describes Peiper as Himmler's "darling" or "personal darling," which strikes me as a poorly chosen, even patronizing description."(H-NET BOOK REVIEW) I have not read any biography of Peiper and cannot form an opinion one way or another. Referring to someone who has, he concludes "Westemeiers book is for the prosecution."(Joachim Peiper by Jens Westemeier A Review)


 * The phrase, "Jan Westemeier speculates..." is used four times in the article. Having not read the work, I question whether this is Westemerier's characterization of his work or that of the article writer characterizing Westemeier's work. Westemeier is cited about 145 times vs 19 for other authors. This clearly violating Wikipedia's policy of undue weight and balance and very likely tips over into original research.


 * Unfortunately, the article is so saturated with content leaning on Westemeier's POV, I am not sure how to clean it up. Any one have any recommendations? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

peiper and prisoners
One should read a little known book titled "Barbara" ,a story of a DD Sherman tank from Normandy to the end of the war.The author recounts an encounter with Peiper,(real or imaginairy),making me wonder if there were so many contradictions,why can't we just call him juilty.

Who is the officer on the right in the picture?
It seems to me, though it's a bit a similar type, there is only a rather distant similarity of the faces. Maybe, it's rather an officer of General Dietrich. Furthermore, this man seems to have something at the right side of his neck, perhaps from an injury and pictures of Peiper always show another decoration beside the Iron Cross in this time.

I remember a dicussion elsewhere on the web, where somebody discovered a film by Eva Brown on the terrace of the Berghof. There could be seen a man, writing a postcard. The writers agreed, that it was clear Peiper ( - I'd say, there was more similarity than on the picture - ) until someone revealed, that it was Hitler's physician 'Brandt'. The picture description mentions no name.

And here another picture from that moment in Metz, on which the face of this officer is clearly recognizable. It's not Peiper. --78.43.98.85 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right. The guy in the second picture is possibly not Peiper. The guy in the first picture is Peiper. Check the matches of the cleft chin and especially the nose. There are enough points of match to pick this guy up for a wanted poster match TODAY! This picture has been agreed on by another user of considerable experience. But thank you for id'ing Sepp Deitrich who is the third guy! See how power full Wikipedia is?--Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In your first comment above you must surely mean Eva Braun?--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Also the second picture is too far away compared to the first image for a full feature match.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) This is so obvious I detect that you may have a personal vested interest. And I am truly sorry about that. The victors are just as damaged as the vanquished, at the end of the day there are only victims....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Not the slightest personal interest. --78.43.98.85 (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The photo is of Peiper. One can tell by the bone structure of the face and chin. Further, the officer is shown as having been awarded the Iron Cross and at the rank of Hauptsturmführer (see the collar patches). Peiper had recently obtained both. Kierzek (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the type, Himmler preferred in his surroundigs, and not the only one with the same collar patches and the Iron Cross for sure. Similar nose and chin, but a totally different eye area. Just compare! P.S.: I would absolutely not recomment this photo of Peiper with the friendly mask of Himmler for the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.105.226 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They all look like Peiper to me. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are all showing Peiper. Kierzek (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they all look like Peiper. 61.132.94.42 (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, manipulation or misquoting the information on NSDAP membership?
The official listing of all SS of all middle and senior SS officers officers, SS-Dienstalterslisten, never listed Peiper.[12] Actually IIRC the book provides info that while SS-Dienstalterslisten didn't list him, the NSDAP did and his ID number was 5.508.134. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Jochen Peiper
Although it should have been discussed first (even for a short time) and was not, I would agree with the redirect to Jochen Peiper as the man himself preferred that spelling and a common spelling used in books; I do note that when a Google search is done, the spelling Joachim has over 200,000 hits and the spelling Jochen has about 88,000 hits online for finding him. Kierzek (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit
The article is in need of some serious copyediting.

Several sections need prose fixes and there are many examples of bad English (possibly due to translation errors from other Wikiprojects). I suggest people also have a go at some pruning of section headers (lvl 2) where they are short single paragraphs.

There is also the issue that the lead does not adequately summarise the article. It should be two or three paragraphs long.

For example, the two sections "Early life and family" and "Wedding and family" - surely there only needs to be one that includes family in its title, if not content as well? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it is in need of some ce work. I have done some copy edit work on it. However, it can use more so feel free to have a go at it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have started on the first three sections. I will be using the MilHist MoS, and referring to two other articles as a basis for this one in both structure and content - I have chosen Otto Skorzeny and Heinrich Petersen initially.
 * I have also removed the tags:
 * One source - although it is true there are around 130+ attribs to one book (Westermeier), there are 40 or so from another 15 or more sources. The material from the book is accused of bias by a couple of reviews, and is indeed claimed by one to be the opposite of Arte's book.
 * Neutrality - though there could be bias introduced by the use of Westermeier, in itself that is not enough to claim POV. At an initial read I cannot see anything in there that Westermeier's book has been used to create POV, for or against Peiper, which should be the case if Westermeier's presumed bias was to show through. On balance it would be best to consider this issue once the copyedit has been completed, when I will endeavour to find other reliable sources for information.
 * (I did find some instances of POV which I have already removed/toned down, something that I will continue to do during the ce (copyedit)) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have anything they can offer on Westermeier's background? I cannot even find a bio of him on the web so far ... Chaosdruid (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Westermeier has an historian background and is also reserve colonel in the Bundeswehr. i will try to collect more information after Xmas.  --Lebob (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Westemeier is a serious German Historian, writing i.a. for the in the scientific community reknown Arbeitskreis Militärgeschichte e. V. .--Orik1949 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I must reconsider my judgement relating to Westemeier. Westemeier was a not serious author until ca. 2006/2007. His works about the SS and Peiper were strongly influenced by the tales and stories of the old comrades of the SS. A few years ago he studied history and learned a lot about writing history - for instance that nothing is so difficult as to write goof history with informations and tales of witnesses of the concerned time i.e. Nationalsocialism. Today he  intends to get a serious historian. He will publish a new book about Peiper and the SS massacres perhaps in about 2012. The old works of Westemeier I, I assume asöso the work of 2007, is not to be recommended. --Orik1949 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact his 2007 book on Peiper is the second book Westemeier writes on Peiper, as he had already written one in 1996. And in the lede he clearly explains how he had been misled by the testimonies of Peiper's "old comrades" and former SS men when writting his 1996 book.  For him the 2007 version of his book is clearly much closer to the real personality of Peiper than the 1997 version.   --Lebob (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that in his latter book he tries too hard to distance himself from his former work; clearly written with a bias. There are other books, such as: "THE DEVIL'S ADJUTANT: Jochen Peiper, Panzer Leader" by Major General Michael Reynolds, and "Kampfgruppe Peiper at the Battle of the Bulge" by David Cooke & Wayne Evans, which are more objective. Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am reading "THE DEVIL'S ADJUTANT: Jochen Peiper, Panzer Leader" by Major General Michael Reynolds right now and find it to be a very objective source that seeks neither to glorify Peiper, nor demonize him. JDanek007Talk  08:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

needs info
Sigurd Hinrichsen or Sigurd Peiper, his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

LEAD - doesn't adequately summarize, right? (2014)
Doesn't seem like the lead of this article adequately summarizes it. Probably could be tagged as such, no? But I refrain from doing so b/c it might seem to be defacing by some, though it's still valid. Anyone have a view on this? JDanek007</b><sup style="color:olivedrab;">Talk 00:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If the article were up for a featured article nomination I (and probably others) would point out that the lead is inadequate for the size and scope of the article; this would be enough grounds to fail it if it wasn't fixed. So you're right it isn't adequate. Having said that, it does mention all the key points, it's not just a one or two sentence vague statement (as many many many leads are). So I would favour not tagging it, since priorities really ought to lie elsewhere. Plus, a tag on the article itself would be as distracting to the reader experience as the inadequate lead itself is. If someone wanted to take the time to improve this from C to B or GA-class, sorting out the lead would be one thing they'd need to do. But they'd be unlikely to need a tag for them to realise that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the courtesy of your reply, Demiurge1000. And ahh yes, this is why I did not tag the article - it would've been left pustuled and distracting, but for no really "good" reason. Purely academic, my motivation in asking, but could this be one of those seemingly rare instances where would be the better choice than  - were one so inclined as to want to leave the article in a pustular state? <b style="color:olivedrab;">J</b><b style="color:black;">Danek</b><b style="color:olive;">00</b><b style="color:black;">7</b><sup style="color:olivedrab;">Talk  04:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So I obviously expanded the lead and put it into format of three paragraphs. Only thing I'm not sure about is if the detail on the house being attacked w/ molotov cocktails is necessary. I made the title of this section here on the talk page appear to be struck through since I didn't think it a concern anymore. Is that ok? <b style="color:olivedrab;">J</b><b style="color:black;">Danek</b><b style="color:olive;">00</b><b style="color:black;">7</b><sup style="color:olivedrab;">Talk 08:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe striking a discussion section title is a good idea. People can read the discussion and see what conclusion has been reached, if any. With that said, the lede is better now with your expansion and adequate for the article. Kierzek (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Kierzek - I'll unstrike the discussion section title that I previously put a strike thru [done]. I appreciate your feedback and guidance! I also learned today that the article had been reassessed as recently as June 2013 before my request this month, and that what's preventing it from B-Class is incomplete referencing. So hopefully we can all work on that, resolving any " citation required tags but not all the unsourced material is tagged". So I hope we can make this happen - it would be nice to make progress the article's evolution into a more respected piece. Cheers! <b style="color:olivedrab;">J</b><b style="color:black;">Danek</b><b style="color:olive;">00</b><b style="color:black;">7</b><sup style="color:olivedrab;">Talk  18:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote origin - source/citation needed (2014)
The following quote appears in the article attributed to Peiper. However, no reliable source is cited, and there is a citation-needed tag inline. A cursory review of Google shows many links assumedly derived from the inclusion of the quote in this article originally, and I did not encounter mention of primary or original documentation of the quote to have been Peiper's.

Die Übersetzung "inadmissability" (Unzulässigkeit) ergibt in dem Zusammenhang überhaupt keinen Sinn. Peiper hat sicherlich "inadequacy", auf deutsch "Unzulänglichkeit", gesagt, und jemand hat es falsch verstanden und übersetzt. In "Worte aus Landsberg" benutzt er ebenfalls den Ausdruck "menschliche Unzulänglichkeit".

Can anyone assist in sourcing this definitively? Otherwise, my understanding is it would need to be removed from the article until such time as a reliable source could be located? Thanks. <b style="color:olivedrab;">J</b><b style="color:black;">Danek</b><b style="color:olive;">00</b><b style="color:black;">7</b><sup style="color:olivedrab;">Talk 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusion
The lead says: "who then burned to the ground his house". Shouldn't it say: "who then burned his house to the ground". Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep-fixed. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now the leads says: "who then burned to his house the ground". Shouldn't it say "who then burned his house to the ground". Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a typo. Fixed. Kierzek (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Kierzek, the sentence is still wrong? Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Grr, Wikipedia poltergeist. Fixed. Kierzek (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now it's perfect. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Aww shucks, you think the entire lead is "perfect", or just the revised sentence, Jonas Vinther?! ') lol... I don't know why I left it w/ such awkward wording and appreciate your and Kierzek taking another look at it. Cheers. <b style="color:olivedrab;">J</b><b style="color:black;">Danek</b><b style="color:olive;">00</b><b style="color:black;">7</b><sup style="color:olivedrab;">Talk 00:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what we're here for, Jdanek007. If you wrote the lead, you are a skilled lead-writer indeed. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Death - unreliable source, false citation
Peiper's death was a political weapon at the time it happened and was used in different ways by different political groups with different agendas. Traces of this can be seen here today. Der Spiegel is and was, especially in the 1970's, sensationalist magazine with a lot of nude/semi-nude pictures. Questionable authors such as Paul Carell wrote articles about SS being nicer than it really was for it. In general Der Spiegel can't be held as a reliable, unbiased, objective and neutral source, especially when article is dealing about an SS-officer or the World War 2.

Another matter is false citation here. Citing article in Der Spiegel 30/1976 (with a nude picture on the cover of the issue) this article currently claims: "Peiper was shot several times and his house was set on fire. In the ruin, Peiper's charred corpse was found with a .22 caliber rifle and a pistol, and with a bullet wound in the chest."

But in fact cited article in Der Spiegel says: "Es war Mitternacht, als im Dorf (357 Einwohner) Schüsse zu hören waren, in der Befestigung, wie Peipers Haus genannt wurde. Als Polizei und Feuerwehr anrückten, war schon alles vorbei. Außer der Leiche fand man drei Hülsen aus dem Jagdgewehr. das Peiper sich von einem Nachbarn geliehen hatte, und fünf Geschoßhülsen seines 7,65 mm-Revolvers. "So war er" -- sagt einer seiner deutschen Freunde. "er hat geschossen bis zuletzt.""

Translated: "It was midnight, when in a village (of 357 inhabitants) shots were heard, from the area, where Peiper's house was known to be. When the police and the fire department arrived, everything was already over. Beside the body was found 3 shells of a hunting rifle, which Peiper had borrowed from his neighbor, and five shells from his 7,65 mm revolver. "So he," -- said one of his German friends, "he kept shooting until then end." So, even the cited article in Der Spiegel doesn't say anything about Peiper being shot several times and having a bullet wound in the chest.

British novelist and popular historian Charles Whiting, who used to write e.g. heroic SS- and Wehrmacht-stories from "German soldier's viewpoint" and had a lot of sympathy for Peiper, offers a pretty detailed picture about his death and the investigation in his idolizing biography SS Peiper (new edition, Pen & Sword, 2014. pp.180-184), but even Whiting wrote nothing about Peiper being shot, or having bullet wounds. Whiting explains that the unknown assailants threw two molotov cocktails at his house, which being of mainly wood catched fire quickly. Peiper kept shooting at the assailants until they fled, but floor collapsed and that had been that. Later by the charred body the police detectives found his US-made revolver & 13 boxes of exploded ammunition for it. Also investigators found his rifle, and traces of bullets fired among trees. According to Whiting, there were also popular rumours in the US and the UK, that Peiper had fled to South America and the body belonged to one of the assailants, but body was confirmed later as Peiper's by his dental records.

Anyway, as English isn't my first language, I ask someone to find better sources and correct this problem. --Ukas (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Der Spiegel is generally considered a reliable source. This could be challenged at WP:RSN. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if it's considered so now and in the future, there's still the problem that citation is incorrect here. Der Spiegel's article doesn't say anything about Peiper being shot, or wounded. --Ukas (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)