Talk:Antony Beevor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antony Beevor article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Somebody seems to have confused the title (on this page and several others) of Beevor's Berlin book with a recent German film detailing the same events. The former is The Fall of Berlin, 1945, and the latter is titled Downfall. -- Fletcher Moore, 9.26.05

Beevor's website [1] clearly says the title of the book is Berlin - The Downfall 1945 - Johnbull 23:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Be that as it may, my copy is entitled The Fall of Berlin 1945. You can also see on Amazon [2] that this title does see at least some use. I don't know what the cause of the discrepancy is, but I will edit the article to reflect the fact that the book has two different titles. SS451 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The explanation is simple: the UK and US editions have different titles, which is not uncommon. I've edited the notes to reflect that. Ragout 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reliability of Beevor

Beevor's book Berlin: the Downfall 1945 has proven controversial among the Russians, who deny the allegation of mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers with disdain. I, rediska (let that be my nick), have surfed the web in search of serious reviews for Beevor's books, but haven't found any satisfactory results. If someone here is familiar with the topic and knowledgeable enough to give a fair and unbiased evaluation of the reliability of Beevor's information, I'd be grateful. Please, do not assume that he is correct or incorrect, do not assume that "the Russian troops hated Germans, so of course they took revenge", do not assume that "it's impossible, because according to regulations, a Russian soldier would be immediatly shot for plundering". Simply stick to the evidence, don't comment on what is a crime against the memmory of the soldiers/rape victims. Thank you.

I did read his book on the Fall of Berlin about three years ago. On a casual reading, I thought that the book was even handed and also well documented. However, I did not perform a deep investigation into the footnotes. The documentation of mass rape committed by the Red Army is documented by other well respected authors. Mr. Beevor does take the time to explain the psychology of the reasons behind this, without excusing it. He also makes the effort to document the fact that much of the Red Army did comport itself professionally despite horrendous fighting conditions. Just my 2 cents. Ber06122 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalingrad Not Co-Authored

I deleted a reference to Beevor's nonfiction book Stalingrad as being co-authored by his wife, Artemis Cooper (her name did not appear on the page). I have a copy of the book in front of me--although the copyright page does list both their names, there is no other indication that she was a co-author. Indeed, in the preface Beevor refers to her as his "editor of first resort," but makes no mention of co-authorship. Based on that, I think this is simply an error, so it is now gone. SS451 17:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That's right, as a copyright notice indicates the owner of the work, not the author. UK authors tend to form a legal partnership with their spouse to own the works. Gdt (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Beevor

Antony Beevor's writing is unreliable historically inaccurate garbage. A lot of it is non-fiction. He exaggerates, generalizes, and makes things up. I believe he does this to make his books more popular with readers who don't know much about WW2 and believe all his writings, which makes his books sell better.

Well, that's your opinion, and I suppose you're entitled to it. This kind of thing really doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page, though. This page is for discussing how to improve this article. SS451 21:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not enough of a historian to say how much of Beevor's writings are accurate. But I read Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, and found most of it to be in poor taste, and bordering on racism. At least half the book is devoted to Soviet atrocities, the Germans who were encircled are portrayed as innocent victims, and the reader is supposed to ignore the fact that it was the Germans who launched an unprovoked invasion of the Soviet Union with intent of killing or enslaving the entire population, not the other way around. Even the title of the book should raise suspicion. For whom was the siege "fateful"?

As far as I know, his book wasn't titled 'The Fateful Siege'. Are you sure you're not reading another book? Duncan Frost 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Stalingrad-Fateful-1942-1943-Antony-Beevor/dp/0140284583 - It appears the book's title was added to for some markets. The reader is not supposed to ignore the German invasion, because the book discusses it in depth (the book begins before the invasion). But of course, seeing as you've read the book, you know this. Geoff B 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

The main page seems to have lots of information about the authors lies and anti soviet bias, but without quote's or citation I feel the page should be changed? Adamshappy


I deleted the reference to Beevor as controversial, since no source was cited for that claim. I deleted the description of him as a publicist with strong anti-Soviet bias also--this language is simply PoV, and cannot be in a Wikipedia article. I also deleted what was, to my knowledge, a complete inaccurate version of the claims he makes in his books regarding the rape of German women by Red Army soldiers. If the person who inserted this can find a citation as to where Beevor claims the nearly all German women were raped, it can go back in, but I don't think such a citation exists, because it's not a claims he has made.

If you think Beevor is dishonest, you need to find actual examples of that, not lie about what he actually says in order to make him appear dishonest. SS451 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the reference to Beevor as "controversial" is back on the main page again (first sentence). I agree, I read that comment and failed to find anything really controversial about him in the article. Needs to be supported or deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.187.236 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Example

Foer example: [3] - critical comment to Beevor's book by O.A. Rzhevsky, Doctor of History, chairman of War History and Geopolitics department of Institute of General History of Russian Academy of Sciences, Presitent of Russian Association of hastorians of the WWII.

В центре внимания книги не по объёму, а по значению — действительно зверства советских солдат и офицеров по отношению к немецкому населению, возвращение образа «азиатских орд», который вбивала в головы немцев нацистская пропаганда, а затем небольшая группа историков-неофашистов, от которых давно отвернулись в Германии. Ключевой вывод книги, вокруг которого автор ведёт рассуждения о зверствах советских войск и особенно насилиях над немецкими женщинами, содержится в следующем пассаже: «Образ солдат с горящими факелами над лицами женщин, укрывшихся в бункере, выбирающих себе жертвы, характерен для всех советских армий, действовавших в Берлинской операции (с. 326)

The central theme of this book, not by volume, but by significance, is factually, brutal atrocities of Soviet soldiers and officers to German population, resurrecting the image of "Asian hordes", which hummered into heads of Germans the Nazi propaganda, and later a small group of historians-neonazis, which were ostrcized in Germany long time ago. The clue conclusion of the book, about which the author makes his reasonings about brutal atrocities of Soviet military and, especially, rapes of German women, is contained in the following sentence: "Image of soldiers with firing torches over faces of women hid themselves in a bunker, selecting victims, is typical for all the Soviet armies, acting in the Berlin operation (p.326)"

The citation of Beevor is a back-translation, so it may be not exact.--Nixer 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a publicist of strong anti-Soviet bias is still PoV language. It cannot be in this article, period. And the quotation you inserted was inappropriately long, did not belong in the introduction section, and had several serious spelling errors. The translation is of fairly poor quality. If you want to find a better translation and create a new "criticism" section, that would be all right, but this one quotation from a critical scholar definitely does not belong in the introduction section.
Please correct the mistakes you've find. Dont delete.--Nixer 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the section you inserted is simply too low quality to be included in the article. I don't speak the language that the article was originally written in, so I cannot fix it. If you can improve the quality of the translation, it would be fine to re-insert it into the article, although the quote should be abridged. If not, we can simply note that some have criticized his scholarship or accused him of taking too negative a tone towards Soviet soldiers in Germany. SS451 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If you see grammatical mistakes, please point them. Otherwise your claims does not make sence.--Nixer 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"[I]s factally" shouldn't be set off by commas. "[T]o German population" needs an article, and in any event the phrase doesn't work--it's missing a verb (possibly "atrocities committed by Soviet soldiers and officers against the German population"?). This whole first sentence is, in fact, a serious run-on. "[H]ummered" isn't a word. "[h]istorians-neonazis" needs to be separated--you can't just hyphenate two nouns and come out with one coherent word. "The clue conclusion" is nonsensical. "[T]he author makes his reasoning" doesn't work either--should probably be "The author's argument is based on," or something along those lines anyway. The actual quote from Beevor's book is "The pattern, with soldiers flashing torches in the faces of women huddled in the bunkers to select their victims, appears to have been common to all the Soviet armies involved in the Berlin operation."
Moreover, the Beevor quote itself is being taken out of context, and it seems at least possible that the passage from the critical article is too (although I have no way of knowing). Again, this and the criticism from the Russian ambassador should be placed in a separate "Criticism" section and not in the introduction. SS451 05:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. This will be very useful.--Nixer 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If you re-insert a better translation of that quote and include some other sources criticizing Beevor's work, I think it would be all right to re-inset "controversial" in the introductory sentence. Currently, there is still not enough support. SS451 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I already presented two sources: Russian scientist and Russian ambassador in the UK. It was official protest of Russian embassy--Nixer 05:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't understand that the second quote was separate from the first. A separate "Criticism" section would be appropriate in this case. The quote from the critical article can't be included unless you can find or create a better translation; you should probably just include a sentence indicating that that author has criticized Beevor. I think it's possible to fix the quote from the ambassador up. With those changes, it would be ok to re-insert the word "controversial" in the first sentence, but "publicist of strong anti-Soviet bias" is POV and shouldn't be included regardless of what you include in the criticism section. SS451 05:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please point the mistakes of the translation. Otherwise the you accusations are pointless.--Nixer 05:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I speak Russian, I can assure you, that the translation is indeed rife with errors. Some things just aren't utterable in English. I have some suggestions. 1st sentence: change "significance" to "meaning", change "is factually" to "are indeed the (no comma)", change "of Soviet" to "commited by Soviet", change "to German" to "against the German". Change "resurrecting the image of "Asian hordes", which hummered into heads of Germans the Nazi propaganda, and later a small group of historians-neonazis, which were ostrcized in Germany long time ago." to "the resurrection of the image of the "Asian hordes", which was being hammered into the the heads of Germans by Nazi propaganda, and later by a small group of neonazi historians, from whom [people] in Germany turned away from long ago."

Change "The clue conclusion of the book" to "The key conclusion of the book" or "The main conclusion of the book". Change "about which" to "around which". Change "makes his reasonings" to "leads discussion" - that's the best I could come up with. Change "Image of" to the "The image of", change "typical" to "characteristic of". Xanon

The central theme of this book, not by volume, but by meaning, are indeed brutal atrocities commited by Soviet soldiers and officers against German population the resurrection of the image of the "Asian hordes", which was being hammered into the the heads of Germans by Nazi propaganda, and later by a small group of neonazi historians, from whom [people] in Germany turned away from long ago. The key conclusion of the book, around which the author leads discussion about brutal atrocities of Soviet military and, especially, rapes of German women, is contained in the following sentence: "The image of soldiers with firing torches over faces of women hid themselves in a bunker, selecting victims, is characteristic of all the Soviet armies, acting in the Berlin operation (p.326)"--Nixer 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a comma after "population". "The image of soldiers with firing torches over faces of women hiding themselves in a bunker, selecting victims, is characteristic of all the Soviet armies in the Berlin operation" I made some more minor changes, I think it looks better now. Can we have a native English speaker's opinion on the subject?

":The central theme of this book, not by volume, but by meaning, are indeed brutal atrocities commited by Soviet soldiers and officers against German population, the resurrection of the image of the "Asian hordes", which was being hammered into the the heads of Germans by Nazi propaganda, and later by a small group of neonazi historians, from whom [people] of Germany turned away long ago. The key conclusion of the book, around which the author centers the discussion about brutal atrocities of Soviet military and, especially, rapes of German women, is contained in the following sentence: "The image of soldiers with burning torches over the faces of women hiding themselves in a bunker, selecting victims, is characteristic of all the Soviet armies in the Berlin operation".

Nixer, I doubt Beevor is really anti-Soviet, its probably just that he takes a more critical approach than Soviet historians, who prefer hailing the heroism of the soviet soldiers. What he described is, IMHO, characteristic not just of Soviet soldiers in Berlin, but pretty much of any army in any conquered territory.Xanon

I disagree with you. How would you like "the image of Britich soldiers searching for victims with torches over faces of women hid themselves in a bunker was typical for British army"?--Nixer 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, it stings to hear something like that. However, if I am not mistaken, Beevor does mention that the British soldiers did plenty of raping themselves in Italy. Xanon

Having read both Stalingrad and Berlin, I must say that Beevor does relativise the reports. According to Berlin, it mostly were the second-line troops who commited atrocities, not the soldiers who were in actual combat duty. Also, Beevor makes repeated statements about the front-line troops and how gallant they were. Superknijn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.164.19 (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth

Shouldn't place of birth be included in the basic introduction of the author? At least in the bio? --Esalen 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

It seems to me that the criticism almost all centrers around his writing about rape by the Red Army. I have (re)added comment to this effect, with sources, which is not POV but factua - this IS the criticism.

I have also given some sourced background on just why this is a sensitive subject likely to attract acrimony. The Germany are particularly sensitive about claiming to be victims, and the Russians particularly sensitive about the heroic Red Army, which means that this topic has been a taboo on both sides.

If you're going to cite a book, then you must cite the book itself, author, ISBN and page number, etc, not a review of the book. Additionally, if a source that was cited earlier supports a statement made later in the article, then that source must be cited again. You can't just leave it unsourced. Geoff B 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Table

I have put his books into a table to make it look more professional and presentable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)