The US Army Is Sorry for Posting a Glamour Shot of a Nazi War Criminal on Their Facebook Page The colorized image apparently originated from a Slovakian fascist gamer’s website.

The headline says it all and explains the controversy.  It was a "glamor shot". 

Text that accompanied the photo is also extremely problematic

=======================================================

“The fate of his beloved nation rested on his ability to lead his men through the American lines,”

========================================================

Frankly, it is easy to see why Americans of all sorts objected to this.  I hope the Army investigates to find out if some right wing nationalism isnt behind this. 

This is a new article with additional information. I didnt want it to be buried inside another seed. 

Either make an on topic comment or say nothing please. 

Thanks for posting this article. It has actual information we all need to make an informed opinion about this. It, the article, also pretty much encapsulates everything that pisses me off about things like this.

How did an infamous Nazi war criminal — his collar emblazoned with Waffen-SS lightning bolts — wind up featured prominently on the Facebook page of a famed U.S. Army unit?

Well, I think one of the most obvious answers would be because he was one of the major parts of the story. 

That’s the question being put to the XVIII Airborne Corps, based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, who shared the image of Nazi field officer Joachim Peiper on Monday evening as part of an ongoing series of posts about XVIII Airborne Corps’ final offensive campaign during World War II’s Battle of the Bulge 75 years ago.

My question is, who's putting the question to the Corps and why? I think I will be able to explain this as my critique of the article unfolds. 

The next line in the article is...

“The fate of his beloved nation rested on his ability to lead his men through the American lines,” XVIII Airborne Corps wrote of Peiper, who is responsible for slaughtering scores of Americans.

That's it. It is neither connected to what preceded it or follows it. It's just there. Why? Maybe because if one doesn't actually bother to read it in it's full context, it simply sounds inflammatory and seemingly sympathetic to Peiper. It is an attempt to bias the reader to a particular point of view, in my opinion. If one bothers to read the full text found here , one can see what was actually said in context. Since I have bothered to read it, it turns out to be exactly what I expected it to be. A simple setting of the stage for the story that would unfold over the next several weeks.

The   post , which has since been edited, was reshared widely by other military units, even by the Department of Defense’s own Facebook.

The question is, why wouldn't it be? They're telling one of the greatest stories the Army has to tell. Ah, but the author of this article doesn't want that question asked. That doesn't conform with his purpose. No, what we are supposed to understand from this sentence is that the Army was caught doing something wrong and they changed it. The takeaway is intended to be that the Army has already admitted to guilt. They haven't though. You'll see why at the end.

It’s a particularly delicate matter, given the surge in far-right extremism around the world. It comes comes on the heels of other similarly embarrassing incidents for the U.S. military, which has fended off accusations that it’s failing to enforce its own policies designed to keep extremism out of the ranks. Over the weekend, military officials said they were   investigating   whether a group of naval and Army students flashed white power symbols on TV during a football game. And in the last few years, around a dozen active-duty service members have been   exposed   as white nationalists or neo-Nazis.

And....Heeeers Merve!!!! This is what I'm talking about. This is what pisses me off. We're told this is a particularly delicate matter because the writer wants us to think it's a particularly delicate matter. It's not at all delicate but apparently we're to believe it is, "given the surge in far-right extremism around the world. Of course, that surge of far-right extremism is whatever the left and it's MSM says it is. And, including this issue in that surge appears to be what the writer is attempting to do. 

Then, to get the reader to continue to think how the writer wants them to think, links this issue with a separate and completely unrelated issue that hasn't even been proven to be what it's claimed to be by some. It's pure insinuation and nothing more.  And oh yeah, we gotta throw in some stuff that can actually be confirmed, such as the exposed and subsequently discharged soldiers who were actually proven to be neo-Nazis. 

By Tuesday morning, the post had been flooded with comments accusing the XVIII Airborne Corps of being “fanboys” for Peiper by glamorizing him. In response to one critic, the unit defended themselves by insisting they were simply using a “technique of effective storytelling.” “Sometimes in movies, the movie will create a sense of tension by introducing the bad guy,” they wrote.

Which is absolutely true and completely unremarkable. Everyone has read an opening like that. From grade schoolers reading their text book to fiction. It is absolutely a recognized and valid technique. 

The colorized image   originated   from a Slovakian fascist gamer’s website, as observed by journalist Corey Pein, who matched the watermarks in the picture.

Anyone with a working brain knows this is absolutely meaningless and is only put here for the people too stupid to understand that it is meaningless. The writers intent is to give the non-thinker an "Oh, my God" moment by insinuating that the Slovakian fascist's website is where the Army got the image.

For anyone bothering to read my post far enough to get to this part, the reason why this little fact is meaningless is that even if that is where the colorized image originated it doesn't mean the Army, or anyone in it, got it from that guy's web site. Don't believe me. Try this. Do a search on Joachim Peiper images and see what comes up. I'll even prove this link to make it easier for you. 

The unit has since used Facebook’s edit function to swap out Peiper’s portrait for scenes from the battlefield, and edited the text to refer to the Nazi military officer as an “evil war commander.”

Except that the original text had already referred to him as an evil war commander in the very first sentence that referred to the man so I have to believe that the writer is intentionally misleading his reader to assume that it hadn't already stated that in the first place and must have said something more flattering. 

“We regret the use of the photograph of Joachim Peiper,” they wrote in a   statement   Tuesday morning.

What's key here is the word "regret". I'm pretty sure what this translates to is "We regret there's so many snowflakes in this country we don't have time to deal with. We should have known they would get triggered by a friggin picture that didn't have horns and a goatee. So we'll just say the magic words so you feel better about your SJW selves and we can get back to what's important"  I spent more than 20 years in the Army. I have a pretty good feel for what the Army thinks. 

But of course, what the writer intended to insinuate was the Army regretted that they had done such an obviously morally wrong thing. 

So, I do really thank you for posting the article. I tried to find what had originally been posted. So again, thanks. And I am not writing this at or to you. I am writing it to and at the whole mass of people who are attempting to make a cause out of nothing and dragging people who are probably good, decent people through the mud to do it. You're only included if you are one of those people. 

So, here's my take on why so many people are pissed off about this. The sin of the Army website is that they wanted to tell the story about the Battle of the Bulge rather than making the story about "The Evil Nazi." Now, had the Army web site waxed eloquent about how extra evil this evil Nazi was they wouldn't have minded a bit. In fact I bet the MSM would have even picked up on it. Even if it had superfluous stuff about an actual battle. 

But, oh, the horror. These guys just tried to talk about an actual Battle. Judging from what I've seen, the idea seems to be to give some information and a bunch of pictures. Here's a picture of Darth Vader. Here's pictures of what life was like for our guys. A picture of the enemy soldiers. Tune it tomorrow or next week or whatever. Hope you enjoy it. 

I was recently aske what this country is coming to. I wonder that, too.