The Malmedy Trial

During the Battle of the Bulge, Waffen SS soldiers shot 84 American prisoners near Malmedy, Belgium—the deadliest mass execution of U.S. soldiers during World War II. Drawing on newly declassified documents, Steven Remy revisits the massacre and the most infamously controversial war crimes trial in American history, to set the record straight.

Willis M. Everett, Jr., a prominent Atlanta attorney, jeopardized his status as a member of the social elite to defend German members of the Nazi SS accused of a war crime in which a large number of American prisoners of war were murdered. Partially fuelled by an antisemitism that viewed the flaws in the investigation as signs of Jewish vengefulness, Everett was also deeply impressed by a major German defendant in the trial. Their bizarre relationship forms an intriguing component of this narrative. Includes bandw historical photos. Weingartner teaches history at Southern Illinois University. Annotation copyrighted by Book News Inc., Portland, OR

On December 17, 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, more than eighty unarmed United States soldiers were shot down after having surrendered to an SS unit near the small crossroads town of Malmédy, Belgium. Although more than thirty men lived to tell of the massacre, exactly what took place that day remains mired in controversy. Was it just a “battlefield incident” or rather a deliberate slaughter? Who gave the orders: infamous SS leader Jochen Peiper or someone else? Fatal Crossroads vividly reconstructs the critical events leading up to the atrocity—for the first time in all their revealing detail—as well as the aftermath. Danny S. Parker spent fifteen years researching original sources and interviewing more than one hundred witnesses to uncover the truth behind the Malmédy massacre, and the result is riveting.

"This book assesses the historical significance of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE)—commonly called the Tokyo trial—established as the eastern counterpart of the Nuremberg trial in the immediate aftermath of World War II. Through extensive research in Japanese, American, Australian, and Indian archives, Yuma Totani taps into a large body of previously underexamined sources to explore some of the central misunderstandings and historiographical distortions that have persisted to the present day. Foregrounding these voluminous records, Totani disputes the notion that the trial was an exercise in “victors’ justice” in which the legal process was egregiously compromised for political and ideological reasons; rather, the author details the achievements of the Allied prosecution teams in documenting war crimes and establishing the responsibility of the accused parties to show how the IMTFE represented a sound application of the legal principles established at Nuremberg. This study deepens our knowledge of the historical intricacies surrounding the Tokyo trial and advances our understanding of the Japanese conduct of war and occupation during World War II, the range of postwar debates on war guilt, and the relevance of the IMTFE to the continuing development of international humanitarian law."

Shortly after 9:00 a.m. on May 27, 1947, the first of forty-nine men condemned to death for war crimes at Mauthausen concentration camp mounted the gallows at Landsberg prison near Munich. The mass execution that followed resulted from an American military trial conducted at Dachau in the spring of 1946—a trial that lasted only thirty-six days and yet produced more death sentences than any other in American history. The Mauthausen trial was part of a massive series of proceedings designed to judge and punish Nazi war criminals in the most expedient manner the law would allow. There was no doubt that the crimes had been monstrous. Yet despite meting out punishment to a group of incontestably guilty men, the Mauthausen trial reveals a troubling and seldom-recognized face of American postwar justice—one characterized by rapid proceedings, lax rules of evidence, and questionable interrogations. Although the better-known Nuremberg trials are often regarded as epitomizing American judicial ideals, these trials were in fact the exception to the rule. Instead, as Tomaz Jardim convincingly demonstrates, the rough justice of the Mauthausen trial remains indicative of the most common—and yet least understood—American approach to war crimes prosecution. The Mauthausen Trial forces reflection on the implications of compromising legal standards in order to guarantee that guilty people do not walk free.