Talk:Germany Must Perish!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Germany Must Parish

See this forum posting which asks when this book was published. Unanswered when last I looked. Andrewa 22:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Obviously lots more cleaning up to do on this article, spelling etc, if it's kept. Author apparently not an English native speaker, so that's understandable. Andrewa 23:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Publishing information: LOC says first edition was 1941: Kaufman, Theodore N. Germany Must Perish! Newark, N.J.,: Argyle press, 1941. Was apparently reprinted in 1979 as Kaufman, Theodore N. Germany Must Perish! New York: Gordon Press, 1979 (ISBN: 0849028612). --Fastfission 23:23, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


There is absolutely no reason this article should be deleted, though I see a consensus has not been attained anyway. Here is what I found on the Calvin Website:

"Theodore N. Kaufman was a 31-year old owner of a theatrical ticket agency in Newark, New Jersey who published at his own expense a 100-page book titled Germany Must Perish! in March, 1941. It called for the sterilization of the German population and the dismemberment of Germany, with its land being turned over to neighboring states. The book received no serious attention in the U.S., but the Nazis discovered it in July 1941. They played it up big, claiming that Kaufman was a close associate of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a member of his Brain Trust, and that Roosevelt himself had dictated some of Kaufman's words."

Now I don't know about you, but to me, such an explanatory and apologetic diagnosis of Kaufman and his book seems a little strange. Lets be honest: any book advertised in the New York Times is sure to get noticed.

[May I interject? This summary of Kaufman is copied from a webpage by author Randall Bytwerk, who does seem to be trying to suggest that the Nazis got all worked up over nothing. This is not quite true, however. While the reviewer in Time Magazine (March 24, 1941) subtly mocked the book (and made fun of Kaufman), it seems to have at least partly inspired Louis Nizer's book, What To Do With Germany (1944). What's more, I am aware that there were quite a few Jews in the government who were apparently in favour of implementing similarly draconian policies after Germany was defeated, of which the Morgenthau plan is by far the best known. So the Nazis were not making a mountain out of a molehill. Once America was in the war, there were certainly people taking a similar lline. I think Bytwerk would like to bury the fact that there was intense anti-German hatred in the US during the war and that sometimes it sounded 'exterminationist.']

The Calvin article seems to suggest that the book itself wasn't important and rather, it was only the Nazi propaganda that followed. This is quite a stretch. Considering the graphic descriptions in the text, "turning it into propaganda" isn't very difficult of a task. While his connection to Roosevelt was certainly exaggerated, the opinion voiced by Kaufman should not be underestimated. It is very reminiscent of the attitude during the First World War, when charges of "militarism", "German barbarianism" and a "primative and uncivilized" people became the norm. Furthermore, one only has to look to Europe now to see the comparison to Kaufman's vision - certainly not through sterilization, but undeniably due to immigration and multiculturalism.

Information such as this article should remain on wikipedia because that is the glory of public domain: people deserve to know all the details.

Contents

[edit] Strange Indeed

I agree the hole article is strange indeed. Certainly a violation of neutrality. It is rather another polemical attempt to strike out at critiques and Holocaust Revisionists. In fact the book is better prove for a plan to exterminate the Germans then all the documents presented trying to prove the Germans wanted to exterminate the Jews. It is also not the only Anti-German publication and agitation by influential Jews. I still remember "Judea declare war on Germany" and guess what it's high on the Agenda to be downplayed. [1]


Interesting article. Kaufman dream was taken up by the Morgenthal Plan. Morgenthal et al made Kaufman seem like a mild mannered guy. The DEF camps were one of the manifestations, along with the years of slave labor of DEFs building roads etc throughout Europe, Canada, etc for at least a decade after the war. Sterilization of the mentally ill, retarded, poor, etc had been going on in the USA and maybe other places for years before Hitler came to power. Hitler may have done it also, it appeared to be the latest trend - strange how Holland now leads the world in eugenics and euthanaisia.

[edit] Concerning the removal of David Irving

I do not agree with removing material simply because the figure in question has controversial associations. However, it is Irving, and while he is a wealth of information, the fool showed the court that he misrepresented facts on several occasions. While he is among the first historians to have their footnotes examined under such intense scrutiny, anyone has the ability to do what the court did if they really wanted to. It just requires some extra effort. So, if anyone has a question about a wikipedian's references - or the references in the source the wikipedian cites - they should do some research on their own.

In conclusion, if anybody can find notes relating to where Irving got the information, please add the original information to this article. If Irving had done his job in the first place, we wouldn't have to be doing this...but it does make you wonder how many historians are really playing by the rules. I'm sure he isn't the only one who is guilty of misusing his status.--68.45.21.204 07:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Changes by anon

An anonymous user has changed the introduction to read: "The book was used by Nazi Germany to demonstrate that the Jews were plotting against Germany. Contemporary Holocaust deniers use the book to forward their claim of a Jewish-related conspiracy. Opponents of this claim state that the book was an obscure, self-published work until the Nazis got ahold of it. They consider it to be "little more than self-indulgence in dire vituperation by a man who sees Germany as the sole cause of the world's woes." This is inaccurate and problematic in a number of ways. First, it seems to argue that there are two equal sides, the first is a group that believes that it was a sign of a conspiracy, the other, the "opponents" argue that it was not. Instead, the only people who claim it was a sign of conspiracy are Holocaust deniers who use it as propaganda -- it is not accurate to describe that there is a debate over this. Second, the changes remove the fact that the quote is actually from a 1945 discussion of books about "what to do with Germany" not some sort of view by these shadowy "opponents." Third, the fact that it was used as propangada was removed, making it sound like the book was used in good faith, rather than a concious effort by Nazi Germany to justify genocide. The changes will be reverted. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not in your position to decided whether Germany's anti-Jewish decisions were made in part because of stupid literature like this or whether it was simply exploited as propaganda. In doing so, you are making a judgement call that only reflects your world view. You say that the only people who claim it was a sign of conspiracy are Holocaust deniers who use it as propaganda, but I find your typecasting to be extremely anti-intellectual. I am not a holocaust denier - nor do I believe in a Jewish-run conspiracy theory - but I am willing to entertain any idea if you can front the evidence. You cannot polarize your opponents simply because they do not see the world in the same black and white terms as you do. (Only "COMMIES" support abortion and the welfare state!!!)
Wiki prides itself on its NPOV and my additions show my attempt to distance myself from the material, which your reversions clearly do not. While I think you primarily find it offensive that the article allows the reader to form their own judgements, you have raised several valid points. I agree with your opposition to the word "opponents" - I could not think of a better way to break in the other point of view. Would you prefer to use something else? Also, I agree that the cited statement has been taken out of its 1945 context. I'm willing to collaborate, however, that requires you to do more than revert back to your version every time.--68.45.21.204 21:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, since you have not made an argument for your connection between T-4 and the Holocaust, I am reverting this section because it is bias and untruthful.
Mr. anonymous, I am not sure why you are attacking me as "anti-intellectual" because I stated that the book was used only as propangada. What is your evidence that the book was actually, as you changes imply, signs of an anti-Jewish conspiracy? Certainly the few sources I have found by scholars on this otherwise unnotable book state that it was the work of an isolated author used as propaganda. In this light, it is both POV and original research to state that the book might be the sign of such a conspiracy unless some reputable source (not Goebbels!) gives some evidence that this is the case. You need to "front the evidence" as it were, or your need to not imply that the Nazis could be right on this -- that isn't having an open mind, it is distorting the truth. As for the T-4 Euthenasia program, it is generally included as an early incident of the Holocaust -- see Henry Friedlander's The Origins of the Final Solution, or Holocaust: A History by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Pelt. It is hardly accurate to call this "bias[ed] and untruthful." --Goodoldpolonius2 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
My accusation is the end result of...your argument against "Germany must perish" coming through unacceptably in your use of language. You suggest that if someone does not support the view that Kaufman's work was a muffled voice in the woods, then they are part of the holocaust denier group - the hideous "Other". Your source for the claim about Kaufman as a small-time publisher who was largely dismissed has an opinion just like anyone else. Did they conduct a survey to see how many people saw the ad and went out to buy the book? No. Likewise, the book offers the same sentiment "Judea" voiced when Hitler came to power in 1933, not to mention that this "Germany must perish" propaganda is EXACTLY like the inflammatory remarks that had an opinion-shaping effect in World War I. I find the circumstances around the book to be very odd, though I am not suggesting a Jewish conspiracy existed. There another side of the story that you are completely overlooking, probably because the world hasn't bothered to consider Germany's point of view on anything in the 20th century until very recently. Is Kaufman part of a conspiracy, Jewish or otherwise? Probably not. Is he a voice of agitation against Germany? Yes. YES! Is it work like Kaufman's that helped turn public opinion around years earlier in World War I. Incidently, Imperial Germany was also cast as evil during the war and even when I learned about these things in grade school. Sometimes its easier to construct a dramatic good vs. evil narrative rather than actually examining the potentially confusing circumstances around something like "Germany must perish". So now you know where I stand. What evidence do I need to show your bias? Back to the article, T-4 is related to the Holocaust as we see it on a timeline of historiography. The Holocaust and T-4 are not one in the same, however they are related. I have read the above mentioned text...your comparison between mass organized execution and T-4 is given credit because they were both a means to achieve a similar goal. However, they are not one in the same. Since I already mentioned the Communists, I'll use them again. The purges Lenin enacted served the same purpose as Stalin's purges, but they were completely different in character. Likewise, there is a difference between the apocalypic "means to an end" in the post-1941 period, which no longer included just persecution, sterilization, expulsion and discrimination. Our task on Wiki is to report the facts and let the reader decide for himself. My comment on your black and white view of the world - one that many historians fail to challenge - relates specifically to this. If we consider the Nazis as plotting and scheming every which way, history is easy to understand. Everything falls into place in a timelime like yours. However, if we neutralize them, things become much more complicated and require an effort to explain. I'm not defending Goebbels opinion that there was a jewish conspiracy, but rather, I am willing to look at the circumstances as they were rather than as we see them now (in connection with the Holocaust). To equate T-4 with the Holocaust is an obvious attempt to put "Germany must perish" in a context that it was never a part of, as if to say "See what is coming? The Holcaust!" With that overview, nobody will ever think twice about the book again (which I'm sure you'd appreciate). Don't forget that there was no Holocaust by Germany in WWI, yet Entente propaganda went to great lengths to mislead the public to believe in German crimes against humanity. "Germany must perish" was the attitude that was behind the entire Entente war effort, so if you want to put things in historical contexts, look backwards, not forwards. Dismissing the publication should not be the overall purpose of this article. 68.45.21.204 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

This is getting long so I'll start anew. Please suggest a different wording for my introduction. As is, the publication "was used" by Holocaust deniers. Where did they go? (You didn't purge them, did you?) --68.45.21.204 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of Kaufman

Well, since I get taken to task earlier, a few comments....

First, what's the evidence that Kaufman "inspired" Nizer?

Second, all it takes to put an ad in the "New York Times" is money. The simple placement of an ad does not guarantee attention. Any advertiser will tell you that.

Third, there is practically no discussion of Kaufman after the original reviews (until the Nazis gave it a burst of publicity).

Fourth, in checking American libraries, I find less than 100 that own copies. Not much sign of influence there.

There were, in fact, a variety of proposals for what to do with Germany after the war, some rather vehement. However, none became official policy of Allied governments, whereas Nazi anti-Semitic plans were realized.

In sum, Kaufman was an insignificant figure who would have been entirely forgotten had not the Nazis found his book to be useful fodder for their propaganda.

For those interested in more detail, see my article "The Argument for Genocide in Nazi Propaganda," Quarterly Journal of Speech, February 2005. If you email me, I might send you a pdf of the thing. Bytwerk 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Bytwerk

This is really useful info, it is hard to research this book, because it is basically only notable to the Nazis and their supporters. Perhaps you can put this stuff in the article, and source your article on it as well? It would be terrific. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not too interested in trying to edit this at the moment, but I will add the article I mention to the article bibliography shortly, and if anyone is interested, I'll email them a pdf of the piece, which has a lot more information on Kaufman's book and its influence. Bytwerk 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Bytwerk
Too bad, we need more published experts willing to make changes in areas of their expertise. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kuafman's idea of destroying germans through a genocide of breeding needs to be elaborated on.

Wow. Germany using a book like this to justify genocide of Jews would be like China using Fred Phelps' website to justify genocide of Christians.


Is the full text available online? The fact that only 100 copies seem available - on a well know book title - may mean somthing ( lousy book, unimportant history, someone isn't eager to have it weel known, etc - all kinds of reasons ). Any links? It might turn out to be interesting ( some peer reviewed historian must have a copy he could post ( if it isn't copyrighrtred etc))159.105.80.141 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)