Can Bill O'Reilly possibly be any more ignorant?
Apparently not. Apparently his ignorance and arrogance know few bounds.
As evidence of this, on The O'Reilly Factor last night, he seemed to be claiming that it was the U.S. Army that committed the infamous Nazi war crime of the Malmédy massacre. This massacre occurred during the Battle of the Bulge on December 17, 1944, when elements of Waffen-SS Kampfgruppe Peiper fought the American 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion and defeated the Americans after a brief battle. About 150 of the American P.OW.'s were disarmed and made to stand in a field near the crossroads. A tank and a truck pulled up, and an SS officer pulled out a pistol and started shooting prisoners, after which other German soldiers joined in with machine guns. No one knows why. Some American soldiers ran and managed to escape into the nearby woods, but around 72-84 of the prisoners were killed. Some of the prisoners feigned death, but German soldiers moved among the fallen, shooting or beating to death with rifle butts any who showed signs of life. An American patrol discovered the massacre that night, and news of it spread quickly among Allied troops and shocked the conscience of the civilized world; that is, until the liberation of the camps revealed the full extent of Nazi crimes to all. It also served as a rallying cry for U.S. troops as they drove back the Germans in the Bulge.
Via McCarthy.vg, here's the transcript of O'Reilly interviewing General Wesley Clark on October 3:
However, as Crooks and Liars and Jamie have pointed out, the transcript has been edited. This is what O'Reilly really said:
Yes, there was a little of Clark and O'Reilly talking at the same time, but it was quite obvious what O'Reilly said. Don't believe me? Fortunately, Jamie has kindly kept a video clip (on his blog) and nice MPEG that prove it. Watch them. There is no doubt. (By the way, like another fellow alt.revisionism veteran Andrew Mathis, Jamie is quite active in combatting Holocaust denial on The Holocaust History Project.)
The sad thing is, O'Reilly probably doesn't realize how idiotic his statement was and, in his insufferable arrogance, would probably would never admit his error even if it were definitively pointed out to him. (Or, if he did admit his mistake, he would probably still manage to attack and blame those criticizing him.) He probably thought that the Malmédy massacre was something different, perhaps Americans massacring German soldiers, but, through his mind-numbing ignorance ended up, in essence, accusing the U.S. Army of massacring its own men during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II!
How's that for supporting our troops? What a guy. Kinda makes me feel all choked up--mainly because it makes me feel like vomiting.
As evidence of this, on The O'Reilly Factor last night, he seemed to be claiming that it was the U.S. Army that committed the infamous Nazi war crime of the Malmédy massacre. This massacre occurred during the Battle of the Bulge on December 17, 1944, when elements of Waffen-SS Kampfgruppe Peiper fought the American 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion and defeated the Americans after a brief battle. About 150 of the American P.OW.'s were disarmed and made to stand in a field near the crossroads. A tank and a truck pulled up, and an SS officer pulled out a pistol and started shooting prisoners, after which other German soldiers joined in with machine guns. No one knows why. Some American soldiers ran and managed to escape into the nearby woods, but around 72-84 of the prisoners were killed. Some of the prisoners feigned death, but German soldiers moved among the fallen, shooting or beating to death with rifle butts any who showed signs of life. An American patrol discovered the massacre that night, and news of it spread quickly among Allied troops and shocked the conscience of the civilized world; that is, until the liberation of the camps revealed the full extent of Nazi crimes to all. It also served as a rallying cry for U.S. troops as they drove back the Germans in the Bulge.
Via McCarthy.vg, here's the transcript of O'Reilly interviewing General Wesley Clark on October 3:
CLARK: No, I don't know what it's about, Bill. Because the United States Army that I served in proudly for 34 years, we did not beat up and torture prisoners.
O'REILLY: General, with all respect, there were atrocities in Vietnam.
CLARK: Yes. And they were trials and they were punished.
O'REILLY: And World War II and World War I and the Civil War and the Revolutionary War.
CLARK: They were not by the chain of command.
O'REILLY: Yes, they were.
CLARK: No, they weren't. No they weren't.
O'REILLY: Lieutenant Callie and Medina in Vietnam?
CLARK: They were not condoned by the chain of command. Those guys were court martialed.
O'REILLY: With all due respect...
CLARK: ... all the way up the chain of command.
O'REILLY: General, you need to look at the Malmady (ph) massacre in World War II and the 82nd Airborne.
General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd Airborne that did it!
The sad thing is, O'Reilly probably doesn't realize how idiotic his statement was and, in his insufferable arrogance, would probably would never admit his error even if it were definitively pointed out to him. (Or, if he did admit his mistake, he would probably still manage to attack and blame those criticizing him.) He probably thought that the Malmédy massacre was something different, perhaps Americans massacring German soldiers, but, through his mind-numbing ignorance ended up, in essence, accusing the U.S. Army of massacring its own men during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II!
How's that for supporting our troops? What a guy. Kinda makes me feel all choked up--mainly because it makes me feel like vomiting.
"Can Bill O'Reilly possibly be any more ignorant?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
He's maxed out on ignorance. The only way he could be more ignorant would be if he were in a coma.
Oh, but then again maybe he can...
ReplyDelete"Personal attacks lodged through the internet! How are so-called "Web logs" being used as ideological weapons? And who's behind the smear campaigns? We'll have a No Spin look at a dangerous new weapon in the culture wars!"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135164,00.html
I guess it's easier to attack the "greatest generation" than to consider the possibility that Bush is breaking new ground for abuse of prisoners.
ReplyDeleteBill O'Reilly got his massacres mixed up. Unfortunately US troops did murder some 500 German POWs at Dachau.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_Massacre
It almost certainly wasn't anywhere near 500, and the accounts are quite confused as to what actually happened.
ReplyDeletehttp://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/04/60-years-ago-today-liberation-of_29.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp
Also, not to excuse even the killing of 20-30, which is probably the number that were really killed, but the U.S. troops entering the camp were greeted with unbelievably horrific evidence of the atrocities the Nazi guards committed, including thousands of decomposing bodies, and were disgusted. This does not excuse a massacre, if in fact one occurred, but it is a different situation, done in the heat of the moment, rather than by cold calculation.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a book I'm reading ( Christ in Dachau, there were a number of SS officers killed at Dachau. The book doesn't specify how many. It was written, in German, by an Austrian priest. I'm reading an English translation, so errors are certainly possible. He says that the killing was in response to the discovery of more than 3000 bodies of prisoners who'd been locked into cattle cars and allowed to die there.
ReplyDeleteO'Reilly's too busy towing the party line to care about silly things like facts or the truth. He's part of a growing movement that believes the louder you are, the more right you are. Frankly, I'm surprised Clark bothered to appear. If you ever caught the one where he berated and threatened the son of a 9-11 victim, you'd know you should never, ever pay attention to that obnoxious fool.
ReplyDelete-Ali
Did O'Reilly grow up in the same country that I did? At nearly the same time? As boys we read comic books about WW II, we watched movies and TV shows, we listened to our father's stories about his service in that war. WW II was so immediate to people of my generation that we knew the major outlines of that war, just like we knew our neighborhood. O'Reilly was born just a year before me. Where was he in the '50s and early '60s? The only explanation I can come up with, aside from stupidity and ignorance, is that he did somehow confuse two events, although I do not know exactly what the other event might have been. As you have pointed out, killing concentration camp guards is really something quite different; it is understandable, no matter how inexcusable.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I know it is possible to grow up with huge, gaping holes in one's education. A former newspaper colleague, only a few years younger than me, once told me she didn't know which countries were on which side in WW II. I doubt O'Reilly will cop to that level of ignorance.
According to:
ReplyDeleteBuechner, Howard A. (1986). Dachau - The Hour of the Avenger: An Eyewitness Account. Metairie, La., U.S.A: Thunderbird Press. ISBN 0913159042
it was more than 560 german prisoners.
What is your source for "20-30" ? No, your own blog does not count.
Anyway, I don't expect that any American General would willingly testify in public that "his" men would commit atrocities. That's honor code and nobody wants to be a person who fouls up his own nest; contrary to the fact that it is tradition for any army on this world to commit war crimes during a war.
England and her lover are some scapegoats for the illusion that the Army is really interested in prosecution of war crimes.
So O'Reilly cannot really expect to get a correct answer, but if he is unable to read his references right, the worse for him.
I actually had a bunch of links to answer you with, although the figure of 30-50 comes from Lt. Felix Sparks, who actually stopped the killing. Buechner's figure is an outlier. Unfortunately, my computer completely died and I lost the links. (I'm writing this on my laptop.) I know, I know, it's like the "dog ate my homework" dodge, something I'd mock someone else for, but it really happened, and I haven't had a chance to look up the links again.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, whether it was 25 or 500, the point is that at Dachau the killings were more due to a breakdown of discipline because the men were so angered at what they had found (39 boxcars full of decomposing corpses of men, women, and children, for example), rather than a cold-blooded calculation. It should not be excused, and attempts to cover it up were a blot on an otherwise spectacular campaign.
But the main point is that Bill O'Reilly is so ignorant of history that he unknowingly accused the 82nd Airborne of massacring U.S. soldiers. What an idiot.
: I actually had a bunch of links to
ReplyDelete: answer you with, although the
: figure of 30-50 comes from Lt.
: Felix Sparks, who actually stopped
: the killing. Buechner's figure is
: an outlier.
If the killing was stopped, why is
there AFAIK no testimonies of the
remaining guards or reports of their trials ? Does not seem plausible for me, especially after the cover-up
and a testimony of a US soldier (!).
But I can still be wrong.
[Atrocities in Dachau]
I openly admit, even if it is non-PC, that I am not very sorry for
the fate of the guards.
: But the main point is that Bill
: O'Reilly is so ignorant of
: history that he unknowingly
: accused the 82nd Airborne of
: massacring U.S. soldiers. What an
: idiot.
The only reference to the 82nd I found is the report of a deserteur
during the Iraq {!} War ?! Bill cannot be so dumb ?
holy crap... the man makes a mistake, and now he's a complete idiot. Somebody on his staff probably hosed something up while pulling an all night research stint.
ReplyDeleteLooks like y'all suffer from "OReily Derangement Syndrome"
O'Reilly is a complete idiot for many reasons besides this. His Malmedy screwup is simply another example of his tendency to shoot his mouth off and his apparent belief that he knows a lot, when in fact he does not.
ReplyDelete