Oradour

Objective research on factual information regarding German military related warcrimes.
Locked
Uli
Enthusiast
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by Uli »

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Paddy,

In brief; What do you think is the significance of the statement you posted?

Cheers,

Sid.
No, the question should indeed be, "What do you think is the significance of the statement, Sid?"

You're incredibly, even amusingly, evasive--particularly on those all-too-frequent occasions when you deliberately set out to be extraordinarily obtuse.
Erwin Leibold 26.7.1942
Paddy Keating

Post by Paddy Keating »

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Paddy,

In brief; What do you think is the significance of the statement you posted?

Cheers,

Sid.
I thought readers might be interested in reading Kahn's statement. That's all.

PK
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

Discuss it without personal animosity, Gentlemen.

Best,
~D, the EviL
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Uli,

If Paddy had accompanied it with some explanation, I might already know what its significance was meant to be.

However, he did not and I am just not sure what to make of it.

As far as I can tell, it consists of a statement by a W-SS man present who fingers the W-SS for the Oradour massacre and some later doubts by someone else not present about his statement.

Is that a fair summary?

Cheers,

Sid.
gerhard2
Supporter
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:13 pm

Post by gerhard2 »

Sid:
You answer :
"As far as I can tell, it consists of a statement by a W-SS man present who fingers the W-SS for the Oradour massacre and some later doubts by someone else not present about his statement."
Isn't this more or less how most statements and versions sound and leaves to the rest of us to make sense of it. The one which makes in my opinion the most sense is "T U L L E und O R A D O U R Eine deutsch-französische Tragödie von Otto Weidinger [1985]". Of course coming from Obersturmbannführer Otto Weidinger it has little value for you and likely you consider it a bunch of excuses.
In this Topic, read my posts I said I was not there therefore I gave my opinion based on several versions I read, reports by eye witnesses from both sides and trying to understand what should never happened.
There is one thing I know, most of us and I due to our experiences we had lots of hatred for partisans, what part this played out in Oradour I don't know. Partisans and Jabos ? (In case anybody is asking about Jabo's, when any of those Hero's run out of targets anything was fair game for them, refugees, people, animals, even someone working in a field ) I can understand the treatment they received. Having seen what they did to my comrades in Russia and the many lucky escapes I had as a dispatch rider I could not work up much sympathy for them. You did not call them Partisans, they were freedom fighters in civilian clothing, right ?. Maybe we should have called them Insurgents. Fortunately in my case I was never attached to partisan hunting outfits where suspicion was often enough reason and cruelty was answered by cruelty. The only time I fired on somebody helpless was with a firing squad executing two of our own comrades. Everybody else ? well they were either shooting at us or trying to. You know in war time when seeing death all round it is difficult to retain one's humanity but I am glad to say most of my comrades and I did.
The reason I am posting in this Forum was initially to see if any from my batterie survived and now to point out that we do not deserve to be blamed what the worst among us did and automatically held responsible for every tragedy. Certainly not the many we left behind.
And no matter how long this topic keep's going that's my last word on this sorry subject.
Gerhard
John P. Moore
Author & Moderator
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:40 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon & France

Post by John P. Moore »

I find it interesting how Gerhard brings up ther term "Insurgents". I had also thought of the relationship between the terms "Partisan" and "Insurgents" earlier. We use the term "Insurgents" today" to describe those persons in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan who demonstrate armed resistence and carry out terrorist acts against occupying forces. What is the difference in that with respect to what the partisans in Russia, France, Greece and Yugoslavia did during WW II? Except that the Germans were the bad guys in WW II and the US, UK and NATO are viewed as the good guys by many today. Maybe if the "Das Reich" division had offered financial compenstation for the death of innocent victims right after the incident the problem would have gone away.

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

Post by phylo_roadking »

Well, the dictionary difference is quite simple - a partisan/guerilla is fighting against an occupying power...whereas an "insurgent" is rebelling against his "own government" or ruling political party. Therefore its NOT defined by the person themselves or their actions, but relative to who they're fighting.

And - of course - by who's looking from the outside in :wink: The Maquis and others in France would be insurgents to the German point of view, and to the Vichy government - legally speaking....

But to the Free French abroad they'd be partisans. Depends on who's describing them...and whether they see themselves as an occupying force - or after armistice and surrender - the "legitimate" government.

A fine point to argue, but real nonetheless. As it THEN begs the question of...which is the legitimate government...a tiny fraction of the French armed forces and escpaed civilian government abroad - or the German government of occupation and Vichy Regime AFTER official agreement (surrender) with the previous French government at Compiegne.

Like so many things - it depended which retrospective point of view was there as of May 1945 to judge.
"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 »

With the ADDED complication of - if you want to LEGALLY be able to carry out reprisals etc. (see my posting up the thread about this) you WANT use the term "partisan" and relegate yourselves to the position of an "occupying power" to give that questionable but none the less real "right"...even if after conquest and agreement with the former government you might regard yourself as the "legitimate government".

Whereas if you're fighting "insurgents" - the Geneva Convention and HRLW does NOT give you leeway for reprisal/deterrent shootings :wink:
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Jon P. Moore and Phylo,

You bring up an interesting linguistic point that the author Nicholas Monserrat raised in an article I saw twenty-plus years ago.

He commented how in English literature U-boats tended cunningly to slink beneath the waves preying on unarmed merchantmen, whereas bold British submariners tended to penetrate enemy infested waters to attack vessels carrying his sinews of war, etc.

The rules of war are mutually agreed amongst recognised governments possessed of regulated armed forces. However, there are numerous peoples and groups who have no recognised governments and can't achieve them within the rules of war laid down by those that do. They have rather a different perspective. For example, it is inconceivable that Palestinians could offer any successful form of armed resistance purely within the laws of war as recognised by Israel and other recognised governments.

Cheers,

Sid.
Annelie
Patron
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:07 am
Location: North America

Post by Annelie »

He commented how in English literature U-boats tended cunningly to slink beneath the waves preying on unarmed merchantmen, whereas bold British submariners tended to penetrate enemy infested waters to attack vessels carrying his sinews of war, etc.
Give it a break Sid. Cunning? Of course British submariners
are above repoach?

How about source for your statement?
Just mentioning Monserrat is not enough..and is that his
opinion or does he have proof?

Are you sure your not prejudice just a little?
Annelie
________________________
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

For example, it is inconceivable that Palestinians could offer any successful form of armed resistance purely within the laws of war as recognised by Israel and other recognised governments.
Sid, technically it doesn't matter to them. Who it DOES matter to is the government or governments trying to combat them..and the freedom of action they do or don't have in the eyes of international law...which you must remember is ENTIRELY different after the 1949 Geneva Convention. Nowdays ALL groups/individuals get certain legal protections by default if they're engaged in various activities; prior to 1949 that wasn't the case, and it depended VERY much on their position vis-a-vis their "government" OR the "occupying force". One or the other position allowed diferent actions to be taken against them.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

Annelie,

Sid is saying nothing of the sort. He was using that paragraph to illustrate a point, not saying it to be true. Even the author does not think its true, he is again just using it to make a point.

And Sid gets accused of constantly harassing people without substance...
Jock
Annelie
Patron
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:07 am
Location: North America

Post by Annelie »

I am not accusing Sid of harassing.

:?
Annelie
________________________
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

I didn't say that you were, but I do believe you have, in the past.

Just because you dislike Sid's views, you take something completely out of context, trying to discredit him, when you didn't even understand the point of his post.

Double standards.
Jock
Annelie
Patron
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:07 am
Location: North America

Post by Annelie »

Not arguing with you.

:roll:
Annelie
________________________
Locked