Talk:A Terrible Revenge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Old talk
is this here for any reason beyond user:H.J.'s odd jeremiad?
I would say yes: the world needs to know that Hitler caused a lot of suffering even for his own people User:JCWF
Thank you User:JCWF. Hitler (or vice versa) however was not one of my people. The matter of fact, my people, under the leader of Prussia, the government of Otto Braun from Koenigsberg, Prussia, Germany, was ousted from his office in Berlin by military coup on July 20, 1932. Hitler took over the government and put in his own people. Hitler was opposed by many Germans and was especially opposed by Prussians. user:H.J.
I created this article, because I saw the link for the book at your website, Helga. I do not have any position on the many controversies arising out of European history. My objection to mass murder and other atrocities is purely humanistic and impartial. user:Ed Poor
user:H.J. -- unless all the records have been falsified, Hitler was legally elected. There was no coup. Hitler's party won a sufficient amount of votes and had enough backing that Hindenberg felt it necessary to give him a position in the government. In fact, the only attempt at a coup by Hitler and his cronies that I know of was the Beer Hall putsch, which led to his arrest and his insistence that, from the time of his release, everything be done legally. Moreover, Britain, France (to some extent) and the US would certainly opposed and distrusted Hitler from the beginning if he had seized power in a coup -- on the tail of WWI, this would have been a disaster.
Yes, I know I left out details like the time in office of Brüning and von Papan -- but I think it's important to remember that, after WWI, Prussia was not independent -- in fact, Prussia had pretty much created the German Empire, and was the driving force behind it. After the establishment of the Weimar Republic, Prussia was only one of several federated states and should have been answerable to the Weimar government. In fact, there are people who link Hitler's ability to come to power with the fact that Prussia tried to act independently of the Weimar government so often that it actually undermined it. Moreover, whether or not Hitler was elected (and he wasn't elected to the Chancellorship -- he was named Chancellor, and took on the title of President upon Hindenburg's death), his position was ratified by a plebescite with 88% for Hitler. Perhaps Prussia accounted for all of the opposition? I doubt it. HK
Prussia was the Free State of Prussia until July 20, 1932, when the legal Minister President of the Prussian Government was by military force kept from governing., Berlin policemen were arrested and a different state-run set-up (dictatorship) took over power. You apparently did not read the website pertaining to the positive roll Otto Braun played in the Weimar Republik.
Role. Bavaria still calls itself Freistaat Bayern. It doesn't make it any more independent than any other Bundesland. Braun may have played a part in the Weimar republic, but in general, I believe that Prussian state politics tended to rival the power of the Weimar government and that Prussia often tried to act independently. Either way, it's kind of immaterial -- It's not like Prussia seceded from Germany because Hitler was a bad guy. HK
[edit] Delete
This is nothing but an advertisement for a booktitel of a "historian" known for very revisionist positions in Germany. Has nothing to do with NPOV, has nothing to do with serious enquiry of Prussian history. The whole discussion belongs to some other place, f.e. "Ethnic policies at the end of World War II" or something like that. There you could discuss the book and name it among others, but not alone like this.
Therefore, I propose to delete this article (which does not deserve the name). Jesusfreund 11:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Almost any published book is sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. The book don't have to be NPOV. --Wikimol 11:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Do we have a template for articles about individual books ? Lysy 11:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Survived VfD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Terrible Revenge. Mikkalai 21:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A question on stubs
Why do we have such articles? Or Stubs I should say. They will never be anything more, unless we were to add reviews of the book or excerpts from the book. I can't see why if this is to remain a stub that it doesn't just redirect to the article on the author, with all the information in this stub there. Is there a precedent? What is the policy? --Chammy Koala 21:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- An article about a book is not doomed to stay as a stub. It may contain a summary of its content. Excerpts are not really necessary. I am reading various works of Zayas now and I feel that they may serve a basis of a number of other articles. In particular, NKVD massacres of prisoners may be significantly expanded. While in many places his rhetoric is clearly revisionist (at least I see why it is perceived as such), he collects may factual data (regardless how this data may be interpreted). Mikkalai 22:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Keep
This book contains testimony and information I haven't encountered elsewhere.
If anyone is serious about investigating a crime, would they listen to people who discourage them from reading eyewitness testimony, or would they go after such testimony?
As for dismissing stuff, that can only be done after examining it.
What's in the book is important - and I prefer to know what's in it, rather than hear someone's opinion about it (that's what Wikipedia is supposed to support, right?).
Information is either true or it isn't.
The truth can be arrived at with thinking, serious effort (involving time and energy investment) and scientific method.
So labeling it as "revisionist" is simply an attempt to dismiss it and not deal with it, and that won't work.
As for "self-promotion", you'll find some good examples of that on the other side of the isle.Johan77 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
