Panzermahn -- (1) The linked essay you provided contains the caution:
The following article outlines an examination of the Oradour events using German sources
The events at Tulle and Oradour in the French Dordogne province in early June 1944 have long been considered a black mark against the 2. SS-Panzer Division Das Reich, and against the German forces as a whole. The case against them is widely told, but the German version of these events is barely known. The French version is based largely on the testimony and accounts of Communist Party members. Sometimes these were not even French citizens, but Spaniards in exile after their Civil War, Poles in exile from Poland, or Soviet citizens who fled from service in German units. These stories were told at a time when emotions still ran high from the Second World War. This renders their accounts suspect, and, in all fairness, they should be balanced against the admittedly self-interested German version of the events. (emphasis added)
This is fair enough. However, you quoted from this German version as though it were the established truth, without attempting to follow the author's suggestion of using the German version as a balance to the French accounts. Your post doesn't even mention the French accounts.
(2) The article discusses two different incidents, viewed through German eyes. One took place at Tulle on 9 June 1944, and the other took place at Oradour-sur-Glane the next day, 10 June 1944. However, you have omitted relevant portions of the German accounts in order to make your point.
(a)
Tulle
You provided this quote:
In the light of day on June 9, Das Reich took stock of the situation in Tulle. Forty men of III./95 were discovered dead near a school. They showed signs of execution, and local civilians reported the men had been killed after dropping their weapons and surrendering. Only an SD officer with them had a pistol in his hand. Most of the bodies were mutilated, some had had their genitals cut off and stuffed into their mouths. Others had been covered with excrement. One man had holes in his heels with a rope through them, and a ruined face, indicating that he had been tied to the back of a truck and driven around. Other bodies were found around town, bringing the total German dead to 64. The III./95 had reported 80 missing, meaning several were unaccounted for. And 9 more Germans died in rescuing the garrison, as mentioned before. (1, 18-19)
There were 64 Germans killed in the partisan attack on 9 June 1944 at Tulle. The article giving the German side of the incident states that the same day:
All civilian men found in Tulle were gathered in the yard of the local ammunition factory. The operation was directed by Das Reich 1c (third general staff officer, responsible for intelligence) SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Aurel Kowatsch. He was aided by the Mayor of Tulle, local officials, and the manager of the factory in selecting all non-residents and suspicious individuals. The remaining men were released. From the suspects 120 men were selected for execution as guerrillas by SD official Walter. A number were released because of their youth, and then the remaining 98 were executed, at the direction of Kowatsch, by the Pioneer platoon of SS-Panzer Aufklarungs Abteilung 2. Since the suspects were not soldiers, and since they fought in violation of the Hague Convention, the executions were by means of hanging instead of the shooting. Additionally, it was hoped that the many dead bodies hanging in plain site would deter future Maquis attacks. (1, 19-21)
In other words, in the German version, the Waffen-SS unit executed 98 civilian men by hanging at Tulle on 9 June 1944, without a trial or proof that they had committed any crime. The suggestion from the quoted passage is that the Waffen-SS just left the dead bodies hanging. The provocation was the deaths of the 40 soldiers who had apparently surrendered and then were shot by the partisans. There is no claim that every Waffen-SS trooper in the village had surrendered, so the remaining dead soldiers were probably killed in the fighting before the last group gave up.
(b)
Ouradour
You provided this quote:
At the edge of Oradour 3./DF had found a German ambulance with two medics and four wounded men. The driver and the other medic had been chained to the steering wheel, and then they and the wounded had been burned alive. To establish order in the town Diekmann had the population gathered. The women and children had been placed in the church while the houses were searched. The men were kept under guard in some stables. Munitions were found in many houses, which was yet more evidence of collaboration with the Maquis. Several houses had been burned down when the church suddenly, without warning, had blown up. Diekmann concluded he was under attack, and had the men shot. This may actually have been a moral crime, and it went against Stadler’s orders, but it fit within the Sperrle orders. This was the only part of the Tulle-Oradour incidents that was a crime, and Diekmann obviously felt himself guilty. He had concluded that Kaempfe was dead and that hostages were useless. Survivors were pulled from the rubble of the church, and then Diekmann mounted up his men and drove off. (1, 36-38)
You omitted to add the sentence immediately before the quote:
He [Diekmann] sought and found death in Normandy soon after Das Reich arrived there later that June. Between the testimony gathered by Das Reich’s judiciary branch for the court-martial, and that obtained at the French sponsored Oradour trial in 1953, a more complete picture of events emerged.
In other words, Diekmann was killed during the war. The passage "Diekmann concluded he was under attack, and had the men shot. This may actually have been a moral crime, and it went against Stadler’s orders, but it fit within the Sperrle orders. This was the only part of the Tulle-Oradour incidents that was a crime, and Diekmann obviously felt himself guilty," was Diekmann's defense against charges on which the Waffen-SS intended to court-martial him. Your failure to include this information misleads the readers into thinking that the incident actually happened the way Diekmann described it.
In addition, immediately after the passage you quoted from the article, is this paragraph, which you did not quote:
An alternate version some Germans offered was that once the men and women were separated, Diekmann gave the mayor of Oradour half and hour to secure Kaempfe’s release. If this was not done, all the men would be shot. When the time expired with no sign of the mayor, or of Kaempfe, the men were indeed shot. (2, 6-7)
In other words, your quote only gives one -- the most self-serving -- of the two German versions of the event. Let's see what the likelihood is of it being true, balancing it against the other German accounts.
According to the article, on 10 June 1944 Diekmann went to Oradour to try and recover an officer who was missing in an unrelated incident. You omitted to mention the rest of the story, in which Diekmann gives a conflicting account:
Diekmann reported back to Stadler late in the afternoon of June 10. He said he had driven with his 3./DF under SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Kahn to Oradour-sur-Glane. There he had met resistance from Maquis, including the town’s population. Murdered German Army soldiers had been found in the town after it had been occupied. Weapons and ammunition had been found in many of the houses. All the men in Oradour, about 180, had been rounded up and shot. The houses containing munitions had been burned down, with the flames eventually spreading to the church. It had burned down accompanied by violent explosions.
In other words, Diekmann at first reported to his superiors that all the men in Oradour -- about 180 -- had been rounded up and shot. When he was facing a court-martial, he provided the version given in your quote: "Several houses had been burned down when the church suddenly, without warning, had blown up. Diekmann concluded he was under attack, and had the men shot." This version is contradicted by Diekmann's own report, and by the "alternate version some Germans offered."
In other words, Diekmann's story in the quote you provided is most likely false.
You also said:
Finally it was proven that the French Bolshevik partisans (FTP) provoked the Waffen SS of the Der Fuhrer into committing war crimes at Oradour-Sur-Glane
The bottom line, according to the German version: Diekmann ordered the execution of about 180 civilians by gunfire, without a trial, at Oradour on 10 June 1944. He also burned the town. The claimed provocation: 6 dead German soldiers and a missing officer.
The fact that this was considered insufficient provocation, even by the Waffen-SS, shows that your conclusion is mistaken. Diekmann's commander planned to court-martial him for the incident:
Diekmann requested permission to drive with one of his companies to Oradour to try to free his friend, Kaempfe. Stadler agreed, stipulating that Diekmann was to negotiate for Kaempfe’s release if at all possible. He was only to occupy the town and use force as a last resort. He could take hostages to trade for Kaempfe if the officer could not be recovered otherwise. Stadler wanted Kaempfe kept alive, and was willing to take unusually lenient measures to make sure of this, because Kaempfe was his friend, an outstanding officer, and a valuable SPW specialist.
All the men in Oradour, about 180, had been rounded up and shot. The houses containing munitions had been burned down, with the flames eventually spreading to the church. It had burned down accompanied by violent explosions. No captive hostages had been brought back, and Kaempfe had not been found. Stadler was furious about this report, since it did not comply with his orders. He promised to bring court-martial proceedings against Diekmann, and later did so. (1, 31-32)
By the way, if I'm not mistaken the author of the article you provided is also a member of the forum. His article provided some valuable insights into the incident. Your selective quotes from it did not.
