Oradour-sur-Glane

SharpshooterTom

This was just brought to my attention watching the very first episode of the World at War series on youtube (nearly half a century old), a series made way before I was even born. The very first words of the entire documentary were:

Down this road, on a summer day in 1944, the soldiers came....nobody lives here now....

The horrific events are described for another two minutes, then we're hit with the opening theme music.

Does this place still exist? Are things like the rusted car still there? Has anyone ever been or visited it? Just found it very moving watching it.

Thelonious Monk

I love that theme music, and Laurence Olivier's voice. The Stalingrad episode is very good in explaining what actually went down there.
I remember that episode too OP, haunting words.

Plumbthedepths

It still exists, a decree by DeGualle that it was not to be rebuilt but serve as testament to Nazi evil. A village called Lidice in Czechoslovakia ( now the Czech Republic) was raised to the ground all the males shot dead and the women/ children sent to a concentration camp in reprisal for the assassination of Reinhardt Heydrich affectionately known as the butcher of Prague.
WW II history is interesting and distrubing.

Kalimah

Probably the best documentary series ever made. The only one I could think that would have had the same impact on me was Civil War by Ken Burns, Check it out if you haven't seen it yet. Made in the early 90s about the American Civil War, with many well known narrators such as Morgan Freeman and Susan Sarandon. Marvelous music, personal testimonies and photographs too.

Philipx

Visited it a couple of years ago.

The village is pretty much as it was when the Germans left.

Especially inside the chuch; to see the bullet & shrapnel marks on the walls and the remains of a pram

It's an eerie place, knowing what happened there, but so well worth a visit.

It's in a similar vein to visiting Dachau or Auchwitz - it serves to remind us of the horrors that we as a species are capable of inflicting on each other.

magick

I'd highly recommend Mark Feltons channel on YT. He really covers unusual stories from ww2

Capt'n Midnight

The Eastern Front was was on another level.

The number of people who were murdered in Oradour-sur-Glane is comparable to the number of villages massacred in Belarus.


The Khatyn Memorial near Minsk is a graveyard with 186 graves each with an urn containing some soil from a village that was burned down and never rebuilt. Another 433 totally destroyed villages were rebuilt.

Harry Palmr

WaW and another series called The Unknown War which is entirely focused on the Eastern front and is every bit as epic and probably more grim as the conditions for everyone and the policies were wholesale slaughter - victory by sheer weight of bodies "theirs" and "ours".

Insect Overlord

Pretty sure the Irish language journalist Liam Ó Muirthile wrote an essay about it for the Irish Times some years back. I'll see if I have a copy of it.

banie01

Kalimah wrote: »

Probably the best documentary series ever made. The only one I could think that would have had the same impact on me was Civil War by Ken Burns, Check it out if you haven't seen it yet. Made in the early 90s about the American Civil War, with many well known narrators such as Morgan Freeman and Susan Sarandon. Marvelous music, personal testimonies and photographs too.

The Beeb made some serious powerhouse documentaries in the late 60's and early 70's that are IMHO a level above Ken Burns in everything but the casting.

The Great War similar to WAW but the 1st world war and utterly compelling IMO.

Civilization A history of Art and its impact on the world of man. Presented by Kenneth Clark

The Ascent of Man, a history and explication of mankind's scientific history.
Written and presented by Jacob Bronowski, a man of huge intellect and utterly enchanting explanation.
His monologue on the horrors of genocide spoken from a puddle in Auschwitz is one of the most compelling moments of TV ever.
In the almost 50yrs since it was aired, some of the science has moved on.
But the delivery is still worth a look.

Thelonious Monk

This is a WW1 vet on the Late Late, the horror the men in the 2 wars went through is just ridiculous. If you haven't seen this it's well worth a watch, what a man, and how astute at 93

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWnc-ZlIo5s

It certainly does still exist and can be visited during normal times.

Was there about 6 years ago. There's a visitor center and that leads via an underground tunnel into the old town which has been walled.

Old cars still in place, the church as mentioned above and the gendarmerie station. There's also the graveyard.

Very sombre but if you are nearby, it's a must see

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

This is a WW1 vet on the Late Late, the horror the men in the 2 wars went through is just ridiculous. If you haven't seen this it's well worth a watch, what a man, and how astute at 93

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWnc-ZlIo5s

While a nice interview and story and whatever about him being allowed on TV, he should never ever be called Irish.

Thelonious Monk

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

While a nice interview and story and whatever about him being allowed on TV, he should never ever be called Irish.

That's what you took from that. So all the Irish men who fought in the 2 world wars should never be called Irish?

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

That's what you took from that. So all the Irish men who fought in the 2 world wars should never be called Irish?

Depends who they were fighting for, though when WW1 started Ireland didn’t exist yet anyway so it’s irrelevant. I’ll go no further on that with you here though as I’m actually very interested in WW2 and want to watch some of the things mentioned in this thread. Never seen the one in the OP for a start.

Thelonious Monk

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Depends who they were fighting for

Wish you could expand on this, but you know I mean Great Britain, and I think you're implying they can't be called Irish for fighting in those wars. Like you see them as traitors or something.
Not a great way to remember them.

ReginaldSmythV

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

While a nice interview and story and whatever about him being allowed on TV, he should never ever be called Irish.

Because they fought under a British flag against a regime that was hell bent on genocide?

History has not judged the Irish well on that score

banie01

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Because they fought under a British flag against a regime that was hell bent on genocide?

History has not judged the Irish well on that score

In fairness to them, there was no Ireland, nor Irish flag for them to rally under save in the dreams of Nationalist patriots.

The Irish who went to fight in WW1 went as British Citizens.
The Act of Union was still in effect, we returned MP's to Westminster and we were home to the 2nd city of empire.
A large portion of the population fully embraced our "Britishness" and plenty of writing and research would support the view, that had the 1916 rising aftermath been dealt with less harshly.
That the independence movement may well have collapsed and returned to satisfaction with post war home rule as a dominion.

Calling Irish people who went to fight, who took the shilling anything less than Irish demeans them IMO.
We can't put our 21st century flavour of Nationalism on the actions of those whose place in society and the world was completely in flux after 1916.

I'm a Republican, I had as a younger man serious issue with reconciling how "Irish" men could take the shilling.
Then I developed my thinking along the lines of an Ireland within the UK as it was at the time.
Those Irish who went, are the same as Scots and Welsh who went.
That's how many saw their place, as Irish but British.

Thankfully we don't subscribe to that notion anymore.
But those who went, who fought and died?
They shouldn't be maligned or seen as less than Irish.

Lemon Davis lll

There's a terrific 4hr BBC documentary on the war in the Balkans 'The Death of Yugoslavia' up on YT.

Staggering to think that level of barbarity went on in Europe in the 1990s and that we still required US military intervention to bring a halt to the insanity.

partyguinness

Yes the place still exists and you can visit it.

They rebuilt the town futher away. Always been intrigued by it.

partyguinness

banie01 wrote: »

I'm a Republican, I had as a younger man serious issue with reconciling how "Irish" men could take the shilling.
Then I developed my thinking along the lines of an Ireland within the UK as it was at the time.
Those Irish who went, are the same as Scots and Welsh who went.
That's how many saw their place, as Irish but British.

Thankfully we don't subscribe to that notion anymore.
But those who went, who fought and died?
They shouldn't be maligned or seen as less than Irish.

Like most people who joined the British Army especially in WWI- it was a job. You were cloth and fed and for some it was the first pair of shoes they ever wore. It put food on the table and in fact for women a husband in the army was great catch- guaranteed income.

banie01

partyguinness wrote: »

Like most people who joined the British Army especially in WWI- it was a job. You were cloth and fed and for some it was the first pair of shoes they ever wore. It put food on the table and in fact for women a husband in the army was great catch- guaranteed income.

That is of course part and parcel of the "why".
The Irish and in particular the Irish outside of Dublin and Belfast had little other option for employment.
Our notion of garrison towns attests to that.
But make no mistake, those that served weren't serving in a foreign army.

King and country for many in that period was GB.
The notion of holding those who went as less than Irish needs to be knocked on the head.
Particularly if the parity of esteem that's such an important part of the N.I peace is ever to be anything more than just lip service.

Edgware

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

While a nice interview and story and whatever about him being allowed on TV, he should never ever be called Irish.

Rubbish. Another Sean Russell the Nazi supporter

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

In fairness to them, there was no Ireland, nor Irish flag for them to rally under save in the dreams of Nationalist patriots.

The Irish who went to fight in WW1 went as British Citizens.
The Act of Union was still in effect, we returned MP's to Westminster and we were home to the 2nd city of empire.
A large portion of the population fully embraced our "Britishness" and plenty of writing and research would support the view, that had the 1916 rising aftermath been dealt with less harshly.
That the independence movement may well have collapsed and returned to satisfaction with post war home rule as a dominion.

Calling Irish people who went to fight, who took the shilling anything less than Irish demeans them IMO.
We can't put our 21st century flavour of Nationalism on the actions of those whose place in society and the world was completely in flux after 1916.

I'm a Republican, I had as a younger man serious issue with reconciling how "Irish" men could take the shilling.
Then I developed my thinking along the lines of an Ireland within the UK as it was at the time.
Those Irish who went, are the same as Scots and Welsh who went.
That's how many saw their place, as Irish but British.

Thankfully we don't subscribe to that notion anymore.
But those who went, who fought and died?
They shouldn't be maligned or seen as less than Irish.

I am confused why you replied to me. That was the same point I was making

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Because they fought under a British flag against a regime that was hell bent on genocide?

History has not judged the Irish well on that score

The british caused genocide by hunger, here in 1800s and was at same time as fighting the nazis were engineering famines in india


Quite why people think ireland should be judged poorly for not aligning with them is beyond me

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The british caused genocide by hunger, here in 1800s and was at same time as fighting the nazis were engineering famines in india


Quite why people think ireland should be judged poorly for not aligning with them is beyond me

What an absolutely pathetic and predicable reply

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What an absolutely pathetic and predicable reply

How so??


Your one,claiming ireland been judged poorly for not aligning with those who caused famine here and were at time actively engineering a famine in india


Being paddys day and all....why should ireland assist them to cause another famine?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How so??


Your one,claiming ireland been judged poorly for not aligning with those who caused famine here and were at time actively engineering a famine in india


Being paddys day and all....why should ireland assist them to cause another famine?

Would you like to explain, in a thread dedicated to a nazi massacre, why we should not have fought the nazi empire?

storker

Kalimah wrote: »

Probably the best documentary series ever made. The only one I could think that would have had the same impact on me was Civil War by Ken Burns,

Ken Burn's multi-part Vietnam documentary is also excellent.

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Would you like to explain, in a thread dedicated to a nazi massacre, why we should not have fought the nazi empire?

I certainly wouldnt fight along side any country engineering a famine in india....but thats just me,i view all those commiting genocide with distain....particularly since they done same here



.....the british are pure and utter hypocrites to critise anyone with their history and anyone/any country condemning ireland for not indulging them are poorly informed imperialist wannabes imo

banie01

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I am confused why you replied to me. That was the same point I was making

It was in agreement with your point, a reiteration.

Apologies if someone agreeing with you and elucidating why is confusing.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

I certainly wouldnt fight along side any country engineering a famine in india....but thats just me,i view all those commiting genocide with distain....particularly since they done same here



.....the british are pure and utter hypocrites to critise anyone with their history and anyone/any country condemning ireland for not indulging them are poorly informed imperialist wannabes imo

Yeah I'm sure if you were a working class Irish male back then you'd be reading wikipedia articles about British atrocities and that's why you wouldn't have signed up to fight the Nazis.
We currently allow the yanks to use Shannon to refuel their war planes and have no problem taking all their multinationals money, how many million deaths have they been responsible for since WW2 in Vietnam, Iraq etc?

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We currently allow the yanks to use Shannon to refuel their war planes and have no problem taking all their multinationals money, how many million deaths have they been responsible for since WW2 in Vietnam, Iraq etc?

This is true and an utter joke....how we arent targeted more by likes of isis is beyond me

What the brits and yanks been upto with a generation in the middle east,would shame any rational human....to think we assist it,for,essentially a few quid is horrrible

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

This is true and an utter joke....how we arent targeted more by likes of isis is beyond me

What the brits and yanks been upto with a generation in the middle east,would shame any rational human....to think we assist it,for,essentially a few quid is horrrible

And we have statues of Argentinian and Chilean generals in Ireland who had Irish ancestry, they were part of armies that carried out genocide on the native populations of those lands - but we don't seem to mind that.

Capt'n Midnight

So many What If's ...

The Goldenfels was a cargo ship which the Germans converted to a merchant raider.

As the Atlantis she stopped the SS Automedon on 11 November 1940 northwest of Sumatra. And captured some correspondence which detailed the weakness of the British forces in the Far East.

This intelligence helped convince Japan to go south to British and Dutch colonies instead of north into Siberia. All through the war Japan let Russian ship carry stuff from the USA to Vladivostok. It could have been so different.


This was over a year before Pearl Harbour.

If the US had clarified whether the demand for Japan to leave China was all of it or just the bits outside Manchukuo things could have been different.

Charles Babbage

There were many atrocities in both the first and second World Wars.
These are properly remembered.

But the French and Germans have got on with things . Contrast with Britain who still seem to fight WW2 and with NI where it is 27 years since the IRA ceasefire, yet people carry on as if it was yesterday. This is a bit like giving out about WW2 during the Munich Olympics.

Discodog

The World at War is being shown on the Yesterday Channel - on freesat etc.

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/shows/the-world-at-war/episodes/

Wibbs

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Contrast with Britain who still seem to fight WW2

Their war propaganda never really switched off and still resonates today for them as a culture. Spitfires over the white cliffs of Dover and all that, even the Battle of Britain they would have had to try hard to lose, and almost did. Because in many ways it was the last hurrah of empire, an empire that was creaky, but collapsed after the war, their last bite of importance at the world cherry, even if without the US and the Soviets they would have lost. WW2 is their antiques roadshow of an imagined better time when the world maps were pink.

The US remember WW2 and their own propaganda, but it's less slanted than the British version and they grew to a peak after it and took over the world stage so aren't nearly so pickled in the past about it. The Soviets wouldn't be so much different either. France, Italy and especially Germany would rather forget about the whole thing for obvious reasons so appear to have moved on more.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is true and an utter joke....how we arent targeted more by likes of isis is beyond me

Because it’s tiny and irrelevant in the grand scale of things.

partyguinness

Many an Irishman played their part in the British army in colonising the barbarians.

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

Their war propaganda never really switched off and still resonates today for them as a culture. Spitfires over the white cliffs of Dover and all that, even the Battle of Britain they would have had to try hard to lose, and almost did. Because in many ways it was the last hurrah of empire, an empire that was creaky, but collapsed after the war, their last bite of importance at the world cherry, even if without the US and the Soviets they would have lost. WW2 is their antiques roadshow of an imagined better time when the world maps were pink.
.

was it not the case that it wasn't that the british won but the germans stopped fighting that battle and switched to bombing cities so the british only won the BoB by default.

partyguinness

Wibbs wrote: »

Their war propaganda never really switched off and still resonates today for them as a culture. Spitfires over the white cliffs of Dover and all that, even the Battle of Britain they would have had to try hard to lose, and almost did. Because in many ways it was the last hurrah of empire, an empire that was creaky, but collapsed after the war, their last bite of importance at the world cherry, even if without the US and the Soviets they would have lost. WW2 is their antiques roadshow of an imagined better time when the world maps were pink.

The US remember WW2 and their own propaganda, but it's less slanted than the British version and they grew to a peak after it and took over the world stage so aren't nearly so pickled in the past about it. The Soviets wouldn't be so much different either. France, Italy and especially Germany would rather forget about the whole thing for obvious reasons so appear to have moved on more.

As I read recently, the British have never got over WWII.

I also heard the interesting point that after WWII the British while on the winning side generally (although of course they won it all by themselves) actually did not get a whole lot out of it. In fact Britain while on the winning side ended up in a worse position than before WWII.

Germany and Japan just got on with rebuilding and within 10 years were world leading industrial powers (and still are). Same with France and Italy.

Britain for the next 10 years was a mess. Financially in tatters and its glorious empire disappearing. To a certain extent it has never really recovered and it would explain why WWII is still so deeply ingrained it the national psych.

The big winners from WWII was the US and USSR.

Britain found itself falling between two barstools. It was not big enough to be a genuine superpower like the US or USSR and it didn't want to row in behind the Europeans because it still considered itself too good. It also clung to the last vestiges of Empire which really has not served it any good.

Eventually it did fall in with the European project but only under sufferance and economic necessity but it never really wanted it- Brexit is the latest testament to that.

Britain after WWII was like a grand old lady that had to downsize from the manor house and the large estate to a semi d in suburbs but refused to accept it and still dotes about returning to the manor. Still rings true today.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I certainly wouldnt fight along side any country engineering a famine in india....but thats just me,i view all those commiting genocide with distain....particularly since they done same here



.....the british are pure and utter hypocrites to critise anyone with their history and anyone/any country condemning ireland for not indulging them are poorly informed imperialist wannabes imo

So I am still left wondering just what exactly it is you would have done then because all you can tell us is what you wouldnt have done and what you WOULDNT have done is fight the Nazis and instead allow them to over run europe and commit genocide on an entire race of people across the entire continent because "Someone else was doing something bad somewhere else". And you state this in a thread that is about a memorial to an SS massacre

As for my knowledge, Im confident on that score thanks.

partyguinness

Wibbs wrote: »

Their war propaganda never really switched off and still resonates today for them as a culture. Spitfires over the white cliffs of Dover and all that, even the Battle of Britain they would have had to try hard to lose, and almost did. Because in many ways it was the last hurrah of empire, an empire that was creaky, but collapsed after the war, their last bite of importance at the world cherry, even if without the US and the Soviets they would have lost. WW2 is their antiques roadshow of an imagined better time when the world maps were pink.

The US remember WW2 and their own propaganda, but it's less slanted than the British version and they grew to a peak after it and took over the world stage so aren't nearly so pickled in the past about it. The Soviets wouldn't be so much different either. France, Italy and especially Germany would rather forget about the whole thing for obvious reasons so appear to have moved on more.

After Dunkirk the British had to retreat and sit tight until the US joined the war in Europe. There is this glorious notion that the Brits fought and stood alone against the Germans...The fact of the matter was the Brits had no choice but to sit and wait for the US. Hitler was not all that bothered by Britain and it was an after thought. Hitler had his eyes fixed on Russia which was ultimately a huge mistake. The air invasion was Goering's baby which he underestimated and lost.

Hitler's obsession with the East allowed the Allied powers to regroup from Britain and take the offensive.

Wibbs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

was it not the case that it wasn't that the british won but the germans stopped fighting that battle and switched to bombing cities so the british only won the BoB by default.

Partially that alright. The main problem for the Germans being that their airforce had grown as an arm of their army and was seen as a tactical weapon not a strategic one and their aircraft and tactics were built for that. Pretty much everything was mid range designed to pound opposing forces before the army rolled in. Airborne artillery for the want of a better word. And it worked. They kicked seven shades of poo out of the British and French in France. Why did their propaganda malign a weapons platform like the Stuka dive bomber? Because it worked(with good air cover) and was one of the most successful weapons platforms of the war and terrified them. Even after the British ran from France the English Channel and her ports were off limits to the British navy to anything much bigger than a rowboat, because the Germans would divebomb fiery mayhem on it.

If the channel didn't exist Germany would have routed British forces and taken the country within weeks. Because it did exist they tried to use a tactical airforce as a strategic one. That might have worked if they'd concentrated on the airfields and other military targets like you said, but even then because of the short range of their bombers and especially their fighters all the British would have to do is move their bases north. Moving the bombing to the cities could well have been a "sensible" approach from German high command as they knew the strategic bombing wasn't a great bet and hoped sapping civilian morale from city bombing would be a better one. Nobody knew back then, but it turns out it tends to strengthen morale.

British propaganda still makes much of the German numerical superiority in aircraft. However that was in bombers. In fighters they were on par and were actually increasing production on the British side. Fighters were going to win or lose that battle. Plus if a British pilot bailed out he landed on home ground, a German was captured. German fighters had very limited time over target, a matter of tens of minutes before they ran out of fuel, whereas the British fighters could loiter for much longer. Even with all the British advantages the Germans had them very worried. A few on both sides after the war called the Battle of Britain a draw.

About the only strategic weapon the Germans had was the U-Boat and after the war the British top brass all agreed that the U-Boat was their biggest worry. If they'd have succeeded they could have the starved the nation to surrender.

Philipx

I've made several visits to Europe over the last 20 years or so (the joys of motorcycling ) and there has always been an element of visiting WW2 sites with a smattering of WW1 on my last trip to France.

I have followed some of the path of Easy Company (Band of Brothers); Normandy, Brecourt Manor, Carentan, Bastogne, Foy and Berchtesgaden & The Eagles Nest.

You could spend any amount of time in Normandy alone, there is so much to see.

I've also visited Dachau & Auchwitz/Birkenau; Auchwitz is one of those places that I believe everyone should visit, a truly humbling and thought provoking place.

Next year, Covid permitting, I intend doing a good tour of WW1 sites, The Somme, Verdun etc.

Thelonious Monk

Philipx wrote: »

Berchtesgaden & The Eagles Nest.

I've been there myself, pretty awesome I have to say, the views. Berchtesgaden is a lovely place too.

Philipx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I've been there myself, pretty awesome I have to say, the views. Berchtesgaden is a lovely place too.

When we visited the Eagles Nest we were amused at the attitude of the guide.

She was a lady in her late 50's to early 60s' at the time (2008) and when she was describing the Allied bombing of the area and later the damage the GI's caused to the marble fireplace, she was obviously less than well pleased.

Extrapolate from that what you will

As you say, the views are magnificent and it's was something to have had lunch in Hitler's living room :eek::p

humberklog

Crete is a great place to visit for WW2 stuff and holds a fascinating and often overlooked historical importance in that theatre of war . A lot of the places of interest are very accessible, you can even stay (as I have) in rooms kept by German high command. There's a lovely place in Spili where they locals tell you that all-round bad-guy Friedrich-Wilhelm Muller lived and you can easily snorkel around a downed Messerschmitt Bf 109 in the Aegean.
There's well kept war graves in Souda and as it is still an important military base there's frigates in the bay and fighter jets roaring above- it really moves the historical into the present.

Beevor has a pretty good book on Crete in WW2.

I'm looking at buying over there at the minute and one house that popped up for sale was a purpose built building to house the German Command centre for Crete. It has been converted into 2x apartments. That'd be cool if it wasn't, eh, well, still kinda "bunkerish" and in the middle of nowhere.

partyguinness

Watching a documentary recently about German tanks and aircraft.

They were magnificant pieces of engineering but ironically that was the problem- they were too good and too complicated plus too many variations. Repairs and replacements became a nightmare and just could not keep up with the damage.

For example, every plane no matter how small the damage had to be taken back to Germany to a workshop due to the overly complicated repairs and parts required. Eventually they were just abandoned.

alchemist33

I've read a coupke of books recently about espionage operations in WW2 - they were incredibly detailed and complex manoeuvres. One interesting tidbit was that German intelligence thought they had hundreds of agents in the UK but they were all fake, invented by agents the Brotish had turned so as to send false information.
I think it was a fascinating time, which is easy for me to say from the safety of 21st century Ireland, becasue the case in the OP shows just how depraved people can get.