The Chenogne Massacre, carried out by the 21st Armored as a possible reprisal for Malmedy, was a war crime, an atrocity no better than the Malmedy Massacre, and it's a stain that the U.S. Army carries with it to this day.
Originally Posted by Wakeup
I disagree when you say whatever happened at Chenogne (the truth is still unclear, possibly due to cover-up) is morally equivalent to what occurred at Malmedy. How were we supposed to respond to Malmedy? Send a message to the German high command warning that we wouldn't tolerate any more violations of the Geneva conventions? Or else what? We were at war. How do you deter the enemy during war? The most pointed message we could send them was to engage in similar conduct for a week, which we did. We were arguably trying to prevent more Malmedys.
We all know there is great moral ambiguity in war. When the Germans first used chemical weapons in WW1, should the Allies not have responded in kind? When the Luftwaffe's 1940 London blitz showed the world how strategic bombing kills thousands of civilians, should the Allies have refrained from bombing German cities? Is it always wrong to fight fire with fire? I think the person who initiates the race to the bottom is a lot more culpable than the person who turns around and uses those same methods against the original transgressor.
Ironically when the news of what happened at Malmedy spread among our troops, it sparked much more anger, fury and determination within our ranks to "murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket" than any of Patton's profanity-laden speeches and exhortations ever did.
.