Talk:Malmedy massacre trial

message: Elaboration on the criticisms, please? --Tothebarricades.tk 22:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew nothing about the trial. I read both the Jewish Virtual Library link (which I added) and the scrapbook link, and added the flaws in the trials. Perhaps they need to be expanded a bit and moved to a seperate page, becasue they do not seem to be restricted to just the Malmedy trial.
--Frank.visser 12:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Look, you don't have to convince me: I am Dutch and as far as I am concerned they could have hung them from the highest tree. If not for the Malmedy Massacre, then for the atrocities on the Eastern front, or indeed the Einsatzgruppen. Most of them actually got released after a few years, IMO a scandalous decision.  However, from a NPOV, the trial was highly disputable, and it actually became quite a scandal in the US a few years later, with anti-semitic and anti-communist undertones. Therefore these criticisms should be reported in the article. The article needs to expanded to include this, McCarthy got his first break actually investigating the trial, so it had quite some impact. --Frank.visser 01:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: "The way this tribunal conducted its trials has been critizised, not only by extreme right-wing groups but also in the USA." is a strange sentence. There do exist extreme right-wing groups in the US, so the statement notes nothing special as it is. Did the author mean the US government was critical of the trial? "Guilt was established beforehand" is a tough accusation, violating basic law standards and in direct contrast to other trials like those in Nuremberg. Are there serious sources? And for the claim that witnesses were paid to testify? Get-back-world-respect 14:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: top

message: I am not entirely certain what bias is held by the article for the Jewish Virtual Library (I think it's likely the work of several different people, each trying to clean up the last's work); but I am quite certain that it is irremediably biased.  We don't need to scream about Hitler and the SS being evil for it to be true, nor do those we source.  Unless anyone can offer a compelling reason for keeping, I think it ought to be excised.  Wally 19:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked article 

message: The Wiki article seems to be based on one web page on the net . It needs the input of several more sources to balance it. At the moment the major paragraph is a list of grievances from that article about how unfair the proceeding were.  It needs a piece on the case against the accused, the case for the defence, and a piece on the ruling by the judges, preferably with an example of some legal heavy weight stating if it has been used as precidence in any other international case.
* I was the original author of this article in English.  I actually based it on the corresponding German topic .  I did come up with the link you mention on scrapbookpages.com as part of my corroborating web research.  I don't object to any of the other comments about the ways this topic could be improved; I just wanted to be clear about the source of the topic.  Jim DeLaHunt 02:35, 20 July 2005 (PDT)
::Based on the German Version of the article I reworked the section in question. Funnily enough the German Version war far more NPOV and claimed less then the english one. I coudln't find certain claims made in the English Version in the German one which is why I dropped them completely. If anyone has more information on it, he can be my guest and change it. --Ebralph 10:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better Philip Baird Shearer 12:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Hi, the article has been reworked and as such, I'll remove the tag in a few days unless someone stills has a bone to pick. --Ebralph 22:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: Who was the lawyer who defended the defendants? As the article stands now we have two external links who state that it was an american lawyer, and one link to a page in german that states that it was a german. The German page is by the way a page which strives to combat right wing extremists by trying to contradict their assertions. I am not at all confident that it can be counted on to be NPOV.
Stor stark7 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, during the trial, the lawyer who defended the defendants was the American, i.e. Willis Everett.  It was also Everett who brought the case before the Supreme Court and the Senate.  During the hearings of the Senate subcommittee, Joseph McCarthy - who, BTW, was not member of the Committee, but was attending its sessions - got information material from Aschenauer, who had been the counsel of one of the defendants in the "Einsatzgruppen" trial.--Lebob-BE 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy Dispute

message: I don't see any reason why article should be seperate from Malmedy massacre. I think I'm going to merge it into that article in the near future. Raul654 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I looked, the German wikipedia had separate Malmedy massacre and Malmedy massacre trial articles.  I think there's value in the English Wikipedia having a parallel structure with two articles.  Also, if either of these articles included the detail they deserved, they'd be long enough individually and too long if combined.  I think that fleshing out the content will give a bigger return on effort invested than merging the articles. --Jdlh  | Talk 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a merge.Dduff442 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I have now written an article on the French Wikipedia on the same topic, but I have expanded it quite a lot. --Lebob-BE 22:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with my poor French skills, I can see that you've put in a lot of information that's not in the English article, and have a number of good references.  Excellent job!  --Jdlh  | Talk 08:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tank you.  In fact, I was lucky enough to find the report of the Senate’s subcommittee on line.  Very interesting to read.  Here are links to this document .  On the other hand, I had to walk through historical revisionist websites, which is less pleasant. I hope someone will volunteer to translate from French into English.  Otherwise, I will do it once I find time enough. --Lebob-BE 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French page 

message: I have now expanded that article quite a lot, mainly translating my fr version.  However, since I am not a native English writter, a thorough review of what I have written would be welcome. --Lebob-BE 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not native myself, I only took a closer look at the units involved (the accused) and rewrote it a bit for clarity (and my original intent of wiki linking). But if no one else copy edits in the coming days I will try it myself. By the way, as I already asked in my edit summary, do you have Krämer's correct rank, General-Sergeant or the like does not exist. Even if you only have the original German term I could probably decipher the English equivalent (even from SS ranks, though I'd have to dig deep in my library to find those sources).--Caranorn 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help.  I am not really an expert on how military units must be named.  With respect for Krämer, I have found in the US documents I could find that he was quoted as Brigadier General (i.e. this is an English document).  I think it is the translation software I used to speed up the translation that has shown some flaws  :)  --Lebob-BE 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will correct it to Brigadier-General (should probably have checked the french article as I expect you already included it there...).--Caranorn 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to do that when I remembered there was no rank equivalent for Brigadier-General in the Wehrmacht, I will have to check whether the SS had something similar. I do notice you have it as Brigadier-General in the French article. I guess for now it will stand as general, which after all is not wrong.--Caranorn 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded article 

message: Since I have reworked this article, I wonder whether the factual accuracy banner is still justified for this page.  By lack of contrary opinion, I will remove it by the end of this week. --Lebob-BE 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy banner 

message: Apparently much of what was done here was by editors that do not have English as a 1st langauge as the sentence construction and choice of verbage is exceedingly strange.  I am not disputing any of the core material but this sure needs some serious copy edit. Tirronan 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the whole article was a translation of the same article on Wikipedia (fr).  The French version is the original one that I have translated into English, but your assumption that English is not my first language is completely right.  So, in fact, I am happy that someone takes time to read this article and makes the changes that are needed.  I will now read this article again just to make sure your changes did not alter the intend, although after a first quick read I have the feeling it's not the case.  Anyway, thank you for the time you have spent on this.  --Lebob-BE 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I am not familiar with the US judicial procedures, I agree that the case would probably have been thrown out of court should it have been held in the USA.  Even according the standards of most West European countries it would probably have been a problem.  However, this was a military court and the procedure had set up in accordance with the one adopted by for the Nuremberg trial.  The US Senate Commitee has scrutinized these points and came indeed to the conclusion that at least some facts that happened during the pre trial procedure could have made a problem for a US court.  I don't know whether you have had the opportunity to read the US Senate Commitee summary report.  It is very interesting.  I have put a link several weeks ago on this this talk page to a discussion forum where this report can be found.  This being said, if you think that some points need to be added to the article, do not hesitate. --Lebob-BE 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Edit 

message: There is a proposal to rename the article Dachau International Military Tribunal to be Dachau Military Tribunal, deleting "International". Please review and give your opinion at the move proposal on that Talk page. --Jdlh  | Talk 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Final name was Dachau Trials. Removed wikilinks to old names. --Jdlh  | Talk 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename "Dachau International Military Tribunal" article 

message: Of 75 defendants, 73 were found guilty, 1 innocent. What happened to the last one? Clarityfiend 21:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to some information I have found, the last one was a French citizen who has been deferred to the French justice.  He was enventually released since the French juridiction couldn't not find enough evidence of the charges against him.  --Lebob-BE 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing verdict?

message: Oh dear, the "Bill O'Reilly on Malmedy" virus is infecting this article, too.  An editor just added a section to this article about Bill O'Reilly's factually incorrect statements about the Malmedy massacre in October 2005. I believe that this content does not belong in this article, and I've deleted it. Reasons:
# O'Reilly is talking about the Malmedy massacre itself, not the trial of the perpetrators.  Thus it's not related to this article, which is about the trial.
# Someone added content much like this to the Malmedy massacre article at the time. The editors there had an extensive debate on their Talk page. (I had enough of this debated then.) The conclusion was that the content didn't belong there either. 
# Where it should be recorded is in the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article.  And indeed this story was recorded there. (It was deleted in April 2007 because editors there thought it was not NPOV. That's a separate matter. See their discussion of his Malmedy comments.)
# The content in this (Trial) article has uncited claims that "The involvement of McCarthy in the case has led to the perception in some conservative elements in the US political arena that the Malmedy massacre was an American war crime". The citation given doesn't talk about McCarthy. Thus the first part of the paragraph is weak for lack of a citation.
So, I think a story about Bill O'Reilly doesn't belong in an article about the Malmedy massacre trial. Where it really belongs is in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Thus I've deleted it. If there's disagreement, let's discuss it here and see if we can reach a consensus.  Looking forward to your comments. --Jdlh  | Talk 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've added it to the other article. Clarityfiend 04:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Bill O'Reilly has a great audience and all that but I fail to see how quoting his show adds anything to our understanding about the events.  I concure with Jdlh and Clarityfiend. Tirronan 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill O'Reilly story doesn't belong in "Malmedy massacre trial" article 

message: A young and ambitious Senator in search of publicity, Joseph McCarthy, had obtained from the subcommittee’s chairman authorization to attend the hearings. Apparently, McCarthy, who felt that his senatorial career was fading, had decided to seize the opportunity for publicity
Unwarranted speculation on McCarthy's motives. Or did he actually tell witnesses that he was in search of publicity? If so, why use "apparently" in the second sentence?  
A little later, McCarthy started the witch-hunt that made him famous
"Witch-hunt" is obviously a loaded, biased term. He claimed to exposing Communists, not witches. 190.10.6.47 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some unencyclopedic tone going on in the McCarthy section.  I hope someone fixes it, but I'm not, because I don't really know much about McCarthy.    Randall Bart    Talk   08:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent NPOV violations re Sen. Joseph McCarthy

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Malmedy massacre trial's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "MacDonald":
From Malmedy massacre: 
From Joachim Peiper: MacDonald
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A result of my edits, I'll fix it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Malmedy massacre trial]] 

message: US soldiers had regularly murdered unarmed Axis POWs throughout the Italian and Normandy campaigns, long before the Malmedy massacre took place. 86.148.205.150 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: "The commission did not exonerate the defendants or absolve them of guilt and it endorsed the conclusions General Clay issued in the particular case of Lieutenant Christ. In summary, Clay had written that "he was personally convinced of the culpability of Lieutenant Christ and, that for this reason his death sentence was fully justified"
From the context, one can infer that Lieutenant Christ was a defendant in the trial.
He worthy of being singled out at the end of the article, but not at the beginning where individual defendants are introduced.  It is my opinion that something explaining who Lieutenant Christ was and why General Clay was convinced of his culpability is in order.
Regards, David 4.14.43.226 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieutenant Christ