## Facts

- U.S. military authorities tried Valentin Bersin and more than 70 other Waffen-SS members before a U.S. Army General Military Government Court sitting at Dachau in 1946.
- The prosecution alleged violations of the laws and customs of war arising from the killing of U.S. prisoners of war and Belgian civilians during the Battle of the Bulge (December 1944–January 1945).
- A central event was the 17 December 1944 shooting near Baugnez, close to Malmedy, Belgium, where U.S. soldiers who had surrendered were gathered in a field and fired upon with machine guns; some survivors reported follow-on close-range shootings.
- The indictment and proof also addressed multiple related incidents attributed to elements of Kampfgruppe Peiper during the unit’s advance.
- The defense generally contended that the deaths occurred under combat pressures and were the product of battlefield confusion or spontaneous decisions “in the heat of battle,” and that certain senior defendants denied ordering or knowing of unlawful killings at the time.

## Issues

1. Whether the deliberate killing of surrendered U.S. prisoners of war and protected civilians constituted war crimes under the laws and customs of war.
2. Whether combat conditions or “heat of battle” could justify or excuse the shooting of disarmed prisoners and civilians under control of the captors.
3. Whether liability could extend beyond direct shooters to officers and commanders through concepts akin to command responsibility and participation in a common criminal plan.

## Decision

- The tribunal convicted all defendants on war-crimes charges relating to the killing of U.S. POWs and Belgian civilians.
- The court treated the Malmedy/Baugnez killings and related incidents as unlawful executions, not legitimate combat engagements.
- The tribunal rejected the defense theory that the killings were excused by combat conditions where prisoners had surrendered and were then intentionally shot.
- The court imposed a range of sentences, including death sentences for some defendants and terms of imprisonment for others.

## Legal Principles

- Enemy soldiers who have surrendered and are in the custody or effective control of opposing forces are protected as prisoners of war; their intentional killing is a war crime.
- Battlefield pressure does not excuse purposeful killing of disarmed prisoners or civilians; organized firing on assembled captives and close-range finishing shots support an inference of execution.
- Criminal responsibility may attach to both direct perpetrators and superiors whose orders, knowledge, or failure to prevent or punish unlawful killings connect them to the crimes.
- Participation in a common plan or unit-wide practice to deny quarter can support liability even absent proof that a defendant fired the fatal shot.

## Conclusion

The tribunal held the Malmedy-area killings and related shootings of surrendered U.S. prisoners and civilians to be war crimes and imposed broad accountability across ranks, rejecting claims that battlefield conditions converted deliberate executions into lawful acts of war.


United States v. Bersin, War Crimes Case No. 6-24 (Gen. Mil. Gov’t Ct. 1946)