Oradour

Objective research on factual information regarding German military related warcrimes.
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Hans Weber wrote:Hello

As to how the explosives would possibly be brought into action:

"After a while, I was called into the village again by a messenger to see the commander and found him approximately 30 m distant from the church. I first asked him the question what he wanted to do now. Enough had happened. The village was burning at this time. I remember that in the proximity to the church was standing the parsonage, it was also burning. However I said then to the commander that he should at least let the women run. I believe I said to him that he should chase the women into the forest. The only remark Dieckmann (sic) made was: That it was out of the question. Whereupon he asked the question: Do you have explosives with you? I answered: “No”. Thereupon, an Unterscharführer behind me who was the equipment manager for arms and ammunition, answered: “Yes Sturmbannführer I still have something on the wagon”. He said that he had a batch of 2 or 4 kilos of explosive with him. I turned around and only said to the Unterführer: “Idiot”. Dieckmann (sic) however ordered him to get the explosives and asked me whether I had any idea of blasting. Although I had a pioneer-education as an old infantryman, I declared: “No”. On this question of Dieckmann (sic), an Unterschaführer, who wanted to have an explosive-certificate, came forward. He got the command to install the explosives in the church and to ignite them. I did not see where this charge was installed since I did not go along. On the other hand Dieckmann (sic) accompanied the Unterführer. I assume that the charge was put within the building. When the explosion was carried out, the Unterführer was most severely injured. I saw him hurled outside through the church-door covered in blood. I am not familiar with the name of this Unterführer, however he died of his injury. After the explosion, the whole ground staggered and a deafening noise was to be heard from the church. The walls themselves remained standing. I noticed that Dieckmann (sic) meanwhile collected some teams with MG's (Machine Guns) and hurried to the church-door. This business was to me so jarring that I turned away and moved away a northerly direction. I was accompanied by a messenger of my company-troop. We both went into a house at the village-edge, not yet burned and sat down. I was there for approximately one hour. About then Dieckmann (sic) appeared and gave me the command to collect the company. During this hour, conflagration reigned in Oradour, during which we heard explosions from time to time that were interconnected with a rattle, like a firework. I assume that ammunition that had been stored in the houses went up."

This is the Kahn statement, as Wolfkin already has pointed out.
http://www.oradour.info/appendix/kahnsta1.htm
I point it out again, because I'm under the impression that it largely went unnoticed. I also assume that the Dortumund files are actually at the basis of the ominous archives in Germany that was the subject of the very first post in this thread. Not a military archive, but a tribunal one. Its pros and cons in terms of value to the discussion are imho very well evalutated on the website in question.

As to the flame throwers seemingly issued as standard fare to the Panzergrenadier Bn in the SS, reality in 1944 was quite different. Looking at my original sources, I can't find any evidence for this in 2.SS PD. From an allowance of 86, it only had 6 on May 20th 1944. In case of LAH, I have positive proof that the whole division only fielded 8 flamethrowers during the same period. As this is a most dangerous weapon for the employer, you would not find it issued to inexperienced troops, thus it is unlikely anybody else but the Pioniere were trained on this weapon and nobody else kept it. How things can backfire if untrained personel are using specialist equipement is vividly illustrated in the above statment by Kahn.

Cheers
Hans
This is indeed an important piece of evidence. Kahn was an SS Officer, 2IC of the unit present at Oradour. He clearly states that the Germans intentionally and deliberately murdered the hundreds of women and children in the church at Oradour, as well of course as all the men-folk in the barns and surrounding area.

However, as Hans touches upon and as the author of the website (Michael Williams) quite correctly points out, Kahn’s statement needs to be treated with a degree of caution for various reasons (these are succinctly detailed on the website so I won’t repeat them here).

It’s a powerful and intriguing statement nonetheless, and it would appear to add substantial weight to the case against the SS.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Gerhard, Paddy,

As I am constantly being told by certain people here on feldgrau (including your good selves), we should first and foremost listen to the Veterans that were there on the ground and actually experienced the action, rather than the "armchair historians".

Here we have a German Veteran (Kahn) that was present at Oradour throughout this incident that quite clearly states his comrades intentionally murdered hundreds of women and children in the church. He makes no mention of any civilians or FTP starting a fire or detonating explosives or even that the church catches fire accidentally.

His statement is unambiguous in its conclusion. His unit murdered those women and kids in cold blood.

Are we not to question this mans testimony, simply because he was there?

As you know very well by now, I don't adhere to that methodology and I believe Kahn's evidence should be scrutinised as thoroughly as anybody else’s, even though he was actually there.

However I am intrigued, as to how you view his testimony, in light of the numerous accusations that I am being disrespectful or personally attacking a Veteran if I challenge or question anything that they stated. Especially so, as Kahn starkly contradicts how you both perceive the incident to have occurred.

Regards,

André
Up The Tigers!
gerhard2
Supporter
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:13 pm

Post by gerhard2 »

Andre:
Like I stated before I wasn't there and like you I heard and read about this tragedy. As I was with the 2nd Division in 43/44 of course I would like to know what happened. There are many reports including "T U L L E und O R A D O U R Eine deutsch-französische Tragödie, by von Otto Weidinger-1985" Unfortunately it's in German and it is too much of a job to translate all those pages and pages of it. What I know of Weidinger and all the scources he mentiones I tend to believe his version. The reason I only quoted the "TULLE & ORADOUR: THE GERMAN VIEW by Marc Rikmenspoel" version because it was written in English. About Kahn ? just another wittness, one of many.
You likely will call me biased and you are right after all I was with the 2nd Division and as a former member of the Waffen SS I know how anything detrimental was exaggerated. A example - I read a report about my last outfit and wondered where I was when as dispatch rider I covered my entire Abteilung. When pulling out I was the last one to leave, several people waved. Then I read the "fanatical SS troops fear was one of their main tactics for controlling the population. There were many other stories of brutality, destuction and cruelty".
You likely will say they waved good riddance, I would rather think good bye. After a recent e-mail exchange I know it was good bye.

By the way I am not really very concerned anybody being "disrespectful or personally attacking" after all I know as little about you as you do about me. :roll:
Gerhard
Hans Weber
Enthusiast
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:48 am

Post by Hans Weber »

Hello

While we are at it: Members of 3./DF captured in Normandy gave detailed descriptions how they proceeded in Oradour. They can be found in the National Archive, Kew: TNA, WO 208/3624, Report No. PWIS (H)/KP/113. Consolidated report on interrogation of four PW of SS Pz Gren Rgt. 4 "Der Führer"-Kempton Park Camp-7 Jul 44. I have found PW-reports one of the most useful sources in the past, they are from men with fresh memories and usually quite reliable.

I don't have the material, as this is not my primary area of research. Anybody familiar with TNA and the War Office records is kindly asked to contact me offline. I would like to dig up some material there in the future.

Cheers
Hans
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Andre, what I'm saying is YOU can if you want feel free to dismiss it; but do NOT say that a court would, because a "sworn affadavit" is treated by courts, particularly in France and Germany, differently than in the UK, and courts have different standards of evidence than historians :D :D :D YOU may feel free to knock it down because you dont' agree with it...but said court would ACCEPT it into evidence for it to be knocked down subsequently - and on puely legal terms, not historical evidential terms.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Paddy Keating

Post by Paddy Keating »

Kahn wouldn't have been subjected to the sort of coercion endured by the men of KG Peiper before the Malmédy trial, would he? The French authorities thought nothing of wiring people up to generators at the time.
After the explosion, the whole ground staggered and a deafening noise was to be heard from the church. The walls themselves remained standing. I noticed that Dieckmann (sic) meanwhile collected some teams with MG's (Machine Guns) and hurried to the church-door.
So, after an earthshaking explosion that, apparently, blows the roof off the church and is violent enough to blow the alleged demolitions expert back out through the door, the blast making mincemeat of him in the process, there were so many people inside the church still fit enough to try to climb through windows and so on that the Germans had to quell them with several MG teams?

Hey, don't be mad at me. I am just asking the sort of questions any self-respecting defence lawyer would ask.

PK
Paddy Keating

Post by Paddy Keating »

Kahn wouldn't have been subjected to the sort of coercion endured by the men of KG Peiper before the Malmédy trial, would he? The French authorities thought nothing of wiring people up to generators at the time.
After the explosion, the whole ground staggered and a deafening noise was to be heard from the church. The walls themselves remained standing. I noticed that Dieckmann (sic) meanwhile collected some teams with MG's (Machine Guns) and hurried to the church-door.
So, after an earthshaking explosion that, apparently, blows the roof off the church and is violent enough to blow the alleged demolitions expert back out through the door, the blast making mincemeat of him in the process, there were so many people inside the church still fit enough to try to climb through windows and so on that the Germans had to quell them with several MG teams?

Hey, don't be mad at me. I am just asking the sort of questions any self-respecting defence lawyer would ask.

Oh, and this enormous explosion was achieved with two or four kilograms of explosives. That must have been very powerful explosive indeed.

PK
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

gerhard2 wrote:Andre:
Like I stated before I wasn't there and like you I heard and read about this tragedy. As I was with the 2nd Division in 43/44 of course I would like to know what happened. There are many reports including "T U L L E und O R A D O U R Eine deutsch-französische Tragödie, by von Otto Weidinger-1985" Unfortunately it's in German and it is too much of a job to translate all those pages and pages of it. What I know of Weidinger and all the scources he mentiones I tend to believe his version. The reason I only quoted the "TULLE & ORADOUR: THE GERMAN VIEW by Marc Rikmenspoel" version because it was written in English. About Kahn ? just another wittness, one of many.
You likely will call me biased and you are right after all I was with the 2nd Division and as a former member of the Waffen SS I know how anything detrimental was exaggerated. A example - I read a report about my last outfit and wondered where I was when as dispatch rider I covered my entire Abteilung. When pulling out I was the last one to leave, several people waved. Then I read the "fanatical SS troops fear was one of their main tactics for controlling the population. There were many other stories of brutality, destuction and cruelty".
You likely will say they waved good riddance, I would rather think good bye. After a recent e-mail exchange I know it was good bye.

By the way I am not really very concerned anybody being "disrespectful or personally attacking" after all I know as little about you as you do about me. :roll:
Gerhard
Gerhard,

Thank you for responding.

I am aware of Weidinger and his works but I have not read them, so it is difficult to comment on that in detail. I have however read and studied Rikmenspoel’s account. It is weak in facts, and contains little or no substantive evidence. The main basis of his rebuttal is the Matthes statement, and as demonstrated, that is worthless hearsay at best.

Surely, you see the irony here, bearing in mind the nature of many of our disagreements on Feldgrau in the past. You are actually dismissing the evidence of an SS veteran who was actually there and witnessed the event, in favour of the unsubstantiated opinions of an “armchair” (asyou and others refer to them) historian (Rikmenspoel).

As you know, I see no reason why Kahn’s statement shouldn’t be scrutinized, challenged and questioned like anybody else’s, but that methodology (where Veterans are concerned) has always been very harshly criticised by you, Paddy and others here on Feldgrau.

I suggest to you that double standards are perhaps at work here. It’s either legitimate to challenge the Veteran’s accounts or it isn’t. You know my stance on this matter.

Anyway, I digress. Rikmenspoel provides no evidence to back up his incredulous conclusion (my highlighting):
In sum, Tulle and Oradour were tragic events. But the only possible crime was the shooting of the men of Oradour without separating Maquis suspects from the rest. The man responsible, Diekmann, essentially committed suicide soon after. The events in Tulle were covered by the Hague Convention. The affair of the church in Oradour was a crime for the Maquis, and blame rests with them. The happenings at Tulle and Oradour have too long been labeled as simple German atrocities, and should no longer give Das Reich a black reputation. It is time for the truth.
Source: http://www.oradour.info/appendix/rikmen01.htm

I challenge anybody here to supply substantive evidence that the Maquis murdered hundreds of men and women in the church at Oradour, as Rikmenspoel falls woefully short in his efforts.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Phylo,

It may or may not be admissible evidence to a German or French court. That isn’t the issue here. The issue is what historical worth does it have?

Hence, I ask you AGAIN the following:

Why shouldn’t we dismiss an account that is based purely on heresy through several unnamed sources from over 40 years ago?

If this evidence is unverifiable, unsubstantiated and unreliable why exactly shouldn’t it be dismissed?

What worth does it have to historical study and research?

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Paddy Keating wrote:Kahn wouldn't have been subjected to the sort of coercion endured by the men of KG Peiper before the Malmédy trial, would he? The French authorities thought nothing of wiring people up to generators at the time.
Paddy,

What evidence do you have that Otto Kahn’s evidence was coerced out of him? Or is this, yet again, merely speculation?

Kahn was not in captivity when his evidence was given in Court in 1962. He lived openly in Germany until his death in 1977. Did he ever retract his statement or make any allegations that he was “coerced”?

You have categorically failed to provide any substantive evidence to support the argument that the FTP deliberately ignited any stored ammunitions in the church and you appear to be here again on the same thread making unfounded and spurious accusations regarding Kahn’s testimony.

Regards,

André

PS: I also note, you make no mention of my observation that while it is apparently disrespectful and is deemed a personal attack when I question the accounts or opinions forwarded by Veterans on feldgrau, it now appears to be open season to dismiss the first person testimony of a SS-Vet who witnessed the massacre. Why is that?
Last edited by Cott Tiger on Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Up The Tigers!
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

It may or may not be admissible evidence to a German or French court. That isn’t the issue here.
Oh? Feel free to move the goalposts.
suggest to you, yet again, this is weak, unverifiable, unsubstantiated evidence and its barely worth the paper its written on. Any court, historian or researcher worth their salt would tell you as much.

My point was only to correct the part about courts. Have I expressed ANY other opinion in this thread....? But you've chosen to set aside the court issue, which is good. There's nothing like a bit of precision - especially when you're talking about standards of evidence etc. :wink:

(Or even....shock horror - have I expressed any interest in the subject matter? Can you not read my mind, like Qvist can?)
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

phylo_roadking wrote:
It may or may not be admissible evidence to a German or French court. That isn’t the issue here.
Oh? Feel free to move the goalposts. .
Phylo,

It was YOU that brought up the question of the court and admissibility. I have repeatedly asked you some straight forward questions. I am yet to get a straight forward response.

suggest to you, yet again, this is weak, unverifiable, unsubstantiated evidence and its barely worth the paper its written on. Any court, historian or researcher worth their salt would tell you as much.

My point was only to correct the part about courts. Have I expressed any other opinion in this thread....? :wink:
No Phylo. Re-read the thread (page 10). EDIT - to keep Phylo happy this should read PAGE 8. YOU brought up the courts NOT me.

Stop ducking, and for a THIRD time I ask:

Do you think Matthes evidence, allegedly obtained nearly 20 years previously from an unnamed old man in a kiosk who had in turn obtained his information from an unnamed person, stands up as verifiable, reliable and substantive evidence?

Regards,

Andre
Last edited by Cott Tiger on Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Up The Tigers!
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Page TEN??? Page ten doesn't exist yet, this is only page NINE! Are you feeling quite well?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

I queried your dismissal of a "sworn affadavit" as you didn't seem to realise that "sworn affadavits" have a diferent worth on the continent than here, ALL your subsequent postings until now confirmed that, but I'm glad you now realise that error.

regarding
Stop ducking, and for a THIRD time I ask:

Do you think Matthes evidence, allegedly obtained nearly 20 years previously from an unnamed old man in a kiosk who had in turn obtained his information from an unnamed person, stands up as verifiable, reliable and substantive evidence?
I don't have an opinion on or interest in Oradour-sur-Glane at all. As I've already said. So why would I comment on something that doesn't concern me, my interest or my opinions?

My ONLY interest was the EXTREMELY temporary interest of the issue of the value of "sworn affadavits." Now that you've accepted the correction, with whatever grace, that interest is done. Enjoy the rest of the thread.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Poor show Phylo.
Up The Tigers!
Locked