I think you misunderstood, I cited POW attrocities, because most of the books/supported sources I have deal with the battles or campaigns, but you can look for or research other primary sources or books that deal specifically with civilian atrocities perpetrated by the various units including the Liebstandarte. Theyâre just not the sort of content one would casually read or keep on the bookshelf, and so rapid rebuttals of fact in relation to this type of discourse will probably fall into the too hard basket. For the sake of this discussion they do exist and in the generic book about the SS I mentioned in the other post, you can find some of that.
In relation to the US troops committing atrocities, well as I mentioned before two wrongs donât make a right and whilst I have no more specific knowledge of the incidents you mentioned, they would have been an investigation into these. I just donât know the outcomes.
To be fair " The SS: Hitlerâs Instrument of Terror â doesnât sound exactly scholarly or non-partisan or anywhere near a remotely objective historiography of the the SS. Iâve read enough polemics about the evils of the reich to never need to read another honestly.
You speak dismissively of âvarious revisionist historians perspectivesâ but I think many revisionist authors have contributed much needed nuance to the understanding of the largest conflict in human history.
Sean McMeekins "Stalinâs War: A New History of World War II " and James Ellmans "Hitlerâs Great Gamble: A New Look at German Strategy, Operation Barbarossa, and the Axis Defeat in World War II " are both excellent revisionist histories that cut through much of the war propaganda and petty name calling and attempt to take impartial stock of what really happened.
I think @Man_bear_pigâs point is that at least amongst the fighting men and not rear echelon anti-partisan units, massacres of POWs were common enough on both sides to justify some level of moral equivalence.
Well to be fair its hard to gauge the depth of readership on these forums and I did mention Williamsonâs book was an easy to read general source, its not quite what I would call polemic, but each to their own. Iâm sure you can find much better ones out there.
With respect to revisionist history, this refers more to those authors who would misrepresent and chronologically misalign sources to suit their narratives, rather than insert factual revisions on the basis of new evidence coming into light from de-classified sources - especially the Soviet ones.
I havenât read the ones you mention, however, I have plenty of others on the shelf which cover the campaigns in question in all manner of detail.
I get the point that was made, but without going too deep into moralising about it, I think there are some differences in soldiers reacting badly to combat situations that result in atrocities and an ideology that dehumanises its opponents where such incidents are routine, and well documented.
I was specifically referring to Major Richard Winters on the then Lieutenant Ronald âSparkyâ âKillerâ âBloodyâ âThe Dogâ Speirs. Speirs was alleged to have killed 6 German POWs, as well as other incidents which were for âshock value.â According to Winters, Speirs confirmed that the rumor was true when Band of Brothers was being published, and acquired a letter from Speirs granting permission to include the allegations in the book to prevent a lawsuit. Before this Winters had claimed that command chose to ignore allegations against Speirs as well as others due to a need to retain qualified combat leaders.
The Canadian allegations are common knowledge but Iâm not well versed in any direct citation of the war crimes or actual trials relating to the allegations. The closest I can find is a Canadian General Volkes serving on the appeal trial for a German Commander in the 1950s. The General who was serving as the Judge over Kurt Meyerâs appeal stated that there were no commanders in the theatre who at one time or another decided not to burden their operations with prisoners.
