Talk:A Terrible Revenge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This is a controversial historical topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
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.
user:H.J.
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.
I, Johannes van Aggelen, reviewed this fine book for the Netherlands International Law Review. I am getting a bit irritated by this talk of "revisionism". What is the role of a historian but to review history, ask new questions, interview witnesses and participants of diplomatic conferences, provide new perspectives, reject legends, correct old canards, etc. de Zayas interviewed hundreds of victims for this book and also participants at the Potsdam conference, including Robert Murphy, James Riddelberger, Sir Dennis Allen and Sir Geoffrey Harrison. This is what good analysis and interpretation of history requires. Moreover, from the international criminal law aspect, de Zayas surveys the relevant Nuremberg principles with regard to Nazi expulsions of Poles and Frenchmen, which were deemed to constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Similarly, the ethnic cleansing that occurred in the former Yugoslavia has been found to constitute crimes against humanity, as the recent ICJ judgment of 26 February 2007 (by the way, the longest judgment in the history of the ICJ) confirms. Now, the question must be addressed whether the expulsion of 15 million German civilians from their 700 year old homelands in East Prussia, Pomernia, Silesia, East Brandenburg etc. 1945-48 was somehow different from other instances of ethnic cleansing and thus compatible with international law. This is an important question, and you cannot label a scholar a "revisionist" simply for taking up this hitherto neglected issue and attempting to formulate a cogent answer. JvA.
here the review in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 31 July 2006, page 6
"Fast ein Klassiker
Vertreibungsforscher de Zayas
31. Juli 2006 Bei der Darstellung von Alfred M. de Zayas handelt es sich um die Neuauflage der 1986 erstmals publizierten "Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten", deren englische Originalausgabe bereits ein Jahr zuvor unter dem Titel "A Terrible Revenge. The Ethnic Cleaning of the East European Germans" in New York erschien. Der Autor gehört seit dem Erscheinen seines vielbeachteten Klassikers "Nemesis at Potsdam" (London 1977), welcher in Deutschland erst im vergangenen Jahr unter dem Titel "Die Nemesis von Potsdam" in einer veränderten Neuausgabe herauskam, unzweifelhaft zu den führenden Fachmännern auf dem Gebiet einer vor allem völkerrechtlich orientierten Vertreibungsforschung. Ihm gelang es zudem stets, auch außerhalb der wissenschaftlichen Zunft einen großen Leserkreis zu gewinnen.
Man geht wohl kaum fehl in der Annahme, wenn man die Neuauflage als eine Art Antwort auf Veröffentlichungen wie Michael Brumliks Streitschrift "Wer Sturm sät. Die Vertreibung der Deutschen" betrachtet. Der Band ist nämlich, wie die Vorsitzende des Bundes der Vertriebenen (BdV), Erika Steinbach, in ihrem Geleitwort andeutet und de Zayas in seinen "Schlußfolgerungen" dezidiert bekennt, auch als Beitrag zur kontroversen Diskussion über das vom BdV angestrebte "Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen" in Berlin zu lesen. Der Autor ergreift hierbei deutlich Partei im Sinne der BdV-Position. Die Vorzüge der "Anmerkungen" zeichnen jetzt die deutlich erweiterte Neuauflage aus: Es stellt ein im besten Sinne des Wortes populärwissenschaftliches, mit 120 Fotos reichbebildertes Kompendium dar, das sich an ein breites, historisch interessiertes Publikum wendet. Es vermittelt anschaulich, gut lesbar, quellenorientiert und ohne Polemik Grundwissen zu einem nach wie vor wichtigen Thema."
MATTHIAS STICKLER
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)
"Folgt man de Zayas Interpretation, sind alle Katzen des Nationalismus nachts auf einmal grau, die des deutschen allerdings noch ein wenig grauer." Rainer Ohliger in http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1720863819285
"Der Autor ergreift hierbei deutlich Partei im Sinne der BdV-Position" MATTHIAS STICKLER admits, that de Zayas is biased. No comments. Xx236 11:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Eigentlich stimmt das nicht so. Matthias Stickler schreibt, dass das Buch "quellenorientiert und ohne Polemik Grundwissen" vermittelt. Stickler sagt nicht, dass de Zayas "biased" sei !!! Don't confuse the result of unbiased research with a pre-determined bias prior to research. De Zayas does not write teleological history. As the Bibliographies of his books amply show, he consults primary sources in archives, interviews witnesses on all sides and reads the relevant secondary literature. After that he reaches a conclusion. Methodologically this is perfectly kosher. The rule of scholarship requires an unbiased starting point and a proper methodology. But to be "neutral" at the end of one's research would be a confession of failure. The reader is entitled to see conclusions drawn on the basis of facts. This is all that de Zayas does. He condemns the Nazi crimes, but he also condemns the crimes committed against the 15 million German civilians of East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia etc., whose only "crime" was to be German. Egmond, Holland.
The leading scholarly magazine for history teachers in German secondary schools favourably reviewed the book as follows:
"Der bekannte amerikanische Völkerrechtler und Historiker Alfred-Maurice de Zayas zieht aus seinen langjähringen Studien zur Geschichte der Vertreibung der Deutshen aus Ostmitteleuropa eine knappe, treffende Bilanz (mit einer Auswahl besonders sprechender Zeugnisse), die in historische und völkerrechtliche Thesen einmünden. Sie zeichnen sich durch Klarheit in der Diktion, Prägnanz in den Aussagen und Bemühen um Gerechtigkeit aus". Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 1987/3, p. 188.
Professor Dr. Hans-Detlef Horn wrote in the German Journal "Politische Studien" 309/90 p. 111 "Es ist das Verdienst des amerikanischen Völkerrechtlers und Historikers de Zayas, promoviert an den Universitäten Harvard und Göttingen, als unbeteiligter Ausländer der Nachkriegsgeneration für die breite Öffentlichkeit wertvolle Aufklärungsarbeit geleistet zu haben, indem er die alliierte (Mit-)Verantwortung für die Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, speziell für die Zwangsumsiedlung, in der Kriegs- und Nachkriegszeit in zahlreichen Veröffentlichungen untersucht zu haben ... Die beispielhafte Schilderung des Schicksals der zwölf Millionen Flüchtlinge und Vertriebenen, der zwei Millionen Umgekommenen und Getöteten als Folge der Kriegsereignisse und der alliierten Umsiedlungspläne (Konferenzen von Teheran, Jalta und Potsdam) steht im Mittelpunkt des Kompendiums..."
The former German Minister Heinrich Windelen (Bundesminister für Innerdeutsche Beziehungen) wrote in 1987: "Es ist das Verdienst von Herrn de Zayas, die Debatte über die Vertreibung wieder eröffnet zu haben, eine Thematik, die weitgehend in Vergessenheit geraten war oder direkt vermieden wurde, weil sie als nicht 'gesellschaftsfähig' oder nicht oportun galt. In der Folgzeit haben in der Tat eine Reihe Autoren auf das Werk von de Zayas zurückgegriffen. somit hat er wesentlich dazu beigetragen, dass die Erörterung der Vertreibung heute nicht mehr als Tabu angesehen wird." JvA
It was interesting to follow the discussion concerning Alfred-Maurice de Zayas and his books. It seems that some of the negative comments made about de Zayas are coming from participants of the discussion who have not yet read his books and are essentially reacting against his choice of topics. I have read some of his his books and consider them impecable in methodology and balanced in judgment. As a Harvard lawyer with a German doctorate in history, de Zayas combines the best of both disciplines and takes the reader step by step through the facts and their logical conclusions. He provides the reader with hundreds of footnotes in which he meticulously documents the narrative and comments on the relevant literature from all sources, British, American, French, Swiss, German, Polish, Russian, etc.
I suggest that the critics are missing the point -- namely that history is a continuum that must be seen in context. It is not black and white, nor did it start in 1933 or in 1939. Similarly, international law must be applied equally to all nations and peoples. If ethnic cleansing was illegal in the former Yugoslavia, it was also illegal when 15 million Germans were thrown out of their 700-year old homelands. There can be no discrimination among victims of gross violations of human rights.
Critics are entitled to disagree with the author, but they should articulate where, in their opinion, de Zayas has made a methodological error, or where an important historical fact or legal norm has been neglected.
Dr. de Zayas is not pushing a certain version of history, but is publishing the results of extensive research in many international archives and thousands of interviews with politicians, diplomats, witnesses and victims. Dr. de Zayas is a defender of human rights and freedom of speech worldwide. His credentials are impressive including being a senior lawyer with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary of the Human Rights Committee and the Chief of Petitions, President of the Swiss P.E.N., and member of Amnesty International..
I believe that to make a contribution to a better world, we should all be prepared to dialogue and strive for harmony and understanding and above all for the truth.
E. Friedel
-
- Herr Friedel, "immoral" rather than "illegal" would have been a better descriptor in your above statement, "If ethnic cleansing was illegal in the former Yugoslavia, it was also illegal when 15 million Germans were thrown out of their 700-year old homelands." Legal, not moral, systems evolve. JJC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.18.161 (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Critics
http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04262006-071805/unrestricted/larson_kevin_m_200605_ma.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xx236 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Alfred de Zayas deserves praise for not having adopted the politically correct attitute of most post-World War II historians who turned a blind eye to the sufferings of the losers of World War II. Rightfully, he points to the Nazi-like barbarism to which Germans were exposed by the victors. In his writings he condemns crimes against humanity no matter who committed what to whom. Thus he points to a path of reconciliation that, regrettably, is still waiting to be followed more than 60 years after the disaster. I admire de Zayas for his knowledge and wisdom, and I salute him for his courage to disseminate a politically incorrect truth. Rudolf Pueschel.
False. Poland lost WWII loosing its independence, millions of dead victims, the capital Warsaw. De Zayas writes about the destroiers of Poland rather than about Polish victims of Germans.Xx236 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose, that Poles are ready for reconcilliation at the very moment when Germans (sorry, who other are descedants of Nazis?) restore to Poland its lost territories (pls remind me...who started WW2? Was 'Schleswig-Holstein' Polish battleship?) and resurrect 6 millions Polish citizens killed. Till that very moment, I'm sorry, I'm not ready to equal the guilt of Poles with the guilt of Germans. Yes, deportation was harsh. Yes, even before deportations, the Red Army DID rape and rob.But I suppose, that even the deportation harsness was a little less terrible than conditions in KL Auschwitz-Birkenau (incidentally builded and run by, och what a coincidence, poor Germans)--MWeinz 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Reconciliation is in everyone's interest. Reconciliation, however, must be based on a sincere desire to face all the facts -- including those we rather not hear about. There is little sense in branding one side forever as the bad guys. The perpetrator/victim, Täter/Opfer approach will not bring matters forward. Remember the Lord's prayer. Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris" Forgive and as ask for forgiveness. We all know that Stalin is responsible for the murder of many millions of human beings. No one, however, should blame today's Russians for Stalin's crimes. Mao murdered millions, but no one holds today's Chinese responsible. Genghis Kahn murdered millions, but no one blames today's Mongalians. Nor should they. Why is it different with the Germans? Is this not a form of anti-German racism? JvA
And the facts are:
- everyone in Poland can learn about the expulsion of Germans. There exists internal German problem how many Germans died. According to a pool the majority of Poles acknowledge that Germans were victims of WWII (but victims of the German government policy).
- Germans ignore German crimes against non-Jewish Poles. A Bundespraesident invited to 1944 Warsaw Uprising anniversary was grateful to take part in 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising anniversary. German books about WWII describe the Reich, eventually the Holocaust and the war in the East. Poland is a secondary detail.
- There should be a German monument in Berlin commemorating Polish victims to teach Germans that the crime did happen. It is reconciliation Herr Lehrer. Small German groups construct small monuments of individual Plish victims, mostly forced workers in Germany. It's the beginning of your task. When you do it, return to teach me about moralty and responsibility.Xx236 08:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What is more dramatic than massive killings against innocents? What is more painful than forgetting these crimes against humanity?
As an atheist, I would despair. As a Christian, I would pray: Kyrie Eleison.
May anyone accept to forgive humanity for what we did, for what we did against ourselves, against Poles, against Germans, against our sisters and brothers after all?
In order to face the future, we should all know the truth about crimes against humanity that were done in the past, in the USA, in France, in Africa, in Armenia, in Russia, in Poland, in Germany, in Iraq, everywhere, by imperialists, by invaders and by revengers.
Thanks to Alfred de Zayas, we know more about the Germans killed after the Second World War! Thanks to Reynald Seycher, we know more about the French killed during their Revolution in 1793! Thanks to Stéphane Courtois, we know more about all the victim killed during Communism in USSR! Thanks to Martin Gray, we know more about the Poles'life and deaths during the Second World War!
I would wish that all persons who can give testimony of crimes against humanity should do so as a civic duty, that they do not connive with the criminals by keeping silence about crimes, but instead erect authentic monuments of memory to the victims. Having observed the reality of these four authors, directly or through friends, I can say to you that they are brave, I can affirm that they are modern heroes of the pen. My only bravery here is to sign with my real name: Bertrand Loze
