Quote# 123541

[Extracted from the article "Persecution in France for "The Waffen-SS: Innocent at Oradour""]

On June 9, 2004, the appeal court in Limoges sentenced me to two years in prison (whereof 18 months on probation) and a fine of 3000 Euro for the crime of "approving a war crime." It also declared the confiscation of parts of my archive, which was seized in 2001, to be lawful. The reason for this sentence was my research into the SS "massacre" in the French village of Oradour 60 years ago.

It all began in 1989, when I spoke with a friend about the Waffen-SS and he told me that the official history of "the Oradour massacre" was being questioned by a number of people. At that point I still believed – as almost all French do – in the official historical version. I believed, that members of the Waffen-SS on June 10, 1944, had destroyed the village of Oradour and annihilated its inhabitants. I also believed that they had burned several hundreds of women and children alive in the local church.

In the case of Oradour we are not dealing with a few dozen dead, but with the cold-blooded murder of 642 people, whereof about 500 defenseless women, children, and infants. Faced with such a dire allegation and harboring doubts about it, it is completely reasonable if one visits the site of the crime in order to observe with one" s own eyes that which is held as fact.

I am not a historian. My background is that of a chemical engineer and a teacher of natural science. Therefore I have not studied Oradour with the approach normally taken. It is a fact that French writers when dealing with the Waffen-SS first explicate on the German theories of total war, then talk of "the crimes of the SS" in Russia, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere; then follows the German occupation of France and the general activities of the Waffen-SS in their fight against the Resistance. The Oradour massacre is dealt with only after that. For these tendentious writers the guilt of the Waffen-SS is self-evident. This is why since 1947 the officially disseminated version is the only one to be heard.

[...]

The most likely conjecture is that a partisan ammunition depot was located in the church, and that on June 10 this depot exploded with tragic consequences. The reasons for this remained to be clarified. This theory of course contradicts the official version, which portrays Oradour as a peace loving village located in a region completely free of partisans. The advocates of the official theory do not want people to think consider seriously the factual causes behind the destruction of the church. Why would the Resistance not have used a large village by the side of the main transport routes for their purposes? After all, we know of several cases from France and Belgium in which church buildings were used by partisans as hiding places for large amounts of ammunition.

[...]

The French have always rebutted this German version with their claim of peaceful village. This is a poor attempt to portray themselves as innocent or at least to justify themselves. But let us assume for a moment, that the Waffen-SS really acted "by evil habit" as they are alleged to have done. If they had sought to terrorize and demoralize the population, the Waffen-SS would scarcely have looked for excuses. Rather they would have declared with demonical pride, that they were not to be made fools of. In this case there would have been not one Oradour, but ten, twenty, fifty.

[...]

The most probable scenario to me looks like this: While the Waffen-SS searched through the village, some partisans hid themselves in the church, where weapons and ammunition was hidden since previously. When the women and children were brought to the church, the hidden partisans were discovered. The German soldiers sought to capture them. It came to fisticuffs and finally shots were fired. These shots may have caused the ammunition to explode. Did all women and children inside the church die as a result of the catastrophe? This does not seem plausible, since parts of the church were not destroyed, and since there are objects made of wood and textile left intact. The people standing in the vicinity of these objects must thus also have survived the drama, and not only the already mentioned false witness Mrs. Rouffanche

Vincent Reynouard, Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust  12 Comments [1/10/2017 9:20:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: JeanP
Username:
Comment:



1 | bottom

Mister Spak

In a related story, jews built and operated Sobibor.

1/10/2017 10:00:55 AM

Uilleam

You may notice this runs on the assumption that the Waffen-SS couldn't possibly just have been dicks for the sake of it. Newsflash - doing horrible shit for kicks was an extremely Nazi trait.

1/10/2017 10:27:33 AM

Anon-e-moose

Just watched the first edition of the new series of "Combat Dealers" on 'Quest' channel. Bruce Crompton went on the hunt for spy-related stuff for a Resistance museum in France.

Why did Hitler's Abwehr turn against him? [/Canaris]

Some facts are a little too uncomfortable for you revisionists.

Why are there Muslims working for MI6...?!

Moral: The Nazis were inferior subhumans who had no right to exist. End of debate.

1/10/2017 4:36:53 PM

Psalmanazaar

I personally am a free speech supporter, so I think this horrible person should be allowed to say whatever he likes without being punished by the state.

But it is pretty comical for him to suggest that if the SS were that ruthless there would have been dozens of other massacres. I sort of got the impression that the SS did commit a fair number of massacres during the war.

Also, should have stopped with "I am not a historian." Not knowing the field you are claiming to investigate is NOT an advantage. Next thing you know we'll be electing a president on that basis.

1/10/2017 8:33:59 PM

Indicible

From a Frenchman: that arsehole is actually bragging that he is not an historian to justify his ignorance. My grandparents were both prisoners of war in Germany for 5 years. I would like to know what his family did during the war.
The village was systematically razed. Why were all the villagers gathered inside the church? And yes, the SS was a bunch of murderers.
I am fed up with being all nice and reasonable with scum such as this piece of human-shaped refuse. He has the same right to vote as I do, except he tries to excuse some of the vilest criminals in human history. If that does not make one unfit to participate in civic life, I do not know what does.

I think this horrible person should be allowed to say whatever he likes without being punished by the state.


What do you make of victims or persons with an interest in this matter? Should they not bring the case before a Court because the special snowflake is entitled to his opinion?
There is the bloody problem in our democracies. We try to be nice to everybody, even to those that would destroy us, be they nazi-apologists, islamists, fundies or ploutocrats. This is not tolerance anymore, this is weakness.

1/11/2017 1:07:58 AM

Hasan Prishtina

I am not a historian. My background is that of a chemical engineer and a teacher of natural science. Therefore I have not studied Oradour with the approach normally taken.

The normal approach of historians being to look at the evidence critically, talk to survivors and witnesses on both sides, and look at the context in which the event took place, while not inventing stuff that isn't suggested by the data.

The most likely conjecture is that a partisan ammunition depot was located in the church, and that on June 10 this depot exploded with tragic consequences. The reasons for this remained to be clarified.

Then there would have been very high quantities of residue noted in the church at some point in the last seventy years. And it doesn't explain the presence of hundreds of women's and children's bodies there as there are no recorded incidents of the using of large numbers of women and children as human shields by the Resistance - not least because the Resistance would have known that such a tactic against brutes like the Waffen-SS would have been entirely futile. It also doesn't explain how the whole of the rest of the village caught fire. And it contradicts the explanation given by the Waffen-SS officer in charge as to why he did it, as well as the investigations by the Germans carried out in the aftermath.

I can see why you're not a historian.

1/11/2017 2:06:39 AM

Sassage Flare

So, another nazi sympathiser who's desperately looking for excuses to make them look less like monsters... Nothing new here.

Also, Indicible's last paragraph. At some point we'll have to stop that whole tolerating intolerance thing we're so fond of here in Europe.

1/11/2017 2:50:57 AM

Psalmanazaar

Well, let's say The National Front gains power I your government. Then they get to decide what not to tolerate, right?

I'd rather not ban political opinions I disagree with than give the people who hold them the power to ban my opinions.

I thought a major difference between us and the Islamists was our willingness to permit freedom of expression. What other elements of a free society must we destroy to save it, and if we do that, what is left to save?

1/11/2017 12:41:19 PM

JeanP

If you want to defenc Nazi war criminals, then I would invite you to go to the Oradour-sur-Glane City Hall and read your piece loudly and proudly, so that we might be able to see how long you would live.

1/11/2017 1:28:37 PM

Opaque

Oh come now. Defending free speech does not equal defending the speechmaker. Nobody here would defend this man, what he's saying, nor Nazism in general.

But making speech illegal doesn't make the idea go away; it drives it underground, where it can fester. Best to have such odious speech open and direct, so it can be confronted, shamed, and proven to be shit publicly.

1/11/2017 4:34:32 PM

Zachski

"But making speech illegal doesn't make the idea go away; it drives it underground, where it can fester. Best to have such odious speech open and direct, so it can be confronted, shamed, and proven to be shit publicly."

In an ideal world, yes.

The problem is that all confrontation/shame/criticism is treated the equivalent as making speech illegal - part of how "Stop Being Offended" culture has ruined things for everyone. You react, you respond, you do ANYTHING, and you're treated as an oversensitive special snowflake SJW.

"Censorship" has become a new buzzword for "criticism that I disagree with".

And liberals had a significant part in this, too. Neoliberal pseudo-intellectuals that wanted to fight back against "PC Culture" did a lot to pave the road for these people to start dominating the conversation.

However, I agree with what you are saying - nobody should be arrested for saying things. But we went too far in the other direction. We were so busy defending their right to free speech that we forgot to defend ours.

1/11/2017 5:15:02 PM

Azereaux

The shots caused the ammunition to explode? What the high holy fuck? Nothing like false flags: historical edition, am I right?

1/13/2017 12:07:54 PM

1 | top: comments page