Shocking new book references Feldgrau.com extensively...

[Annelie]

This book by Ron Smelser and Edward J Davies II, targeting this website, Jason Pipes and several other people, for instance, may well be a bullying tactic. It certainly doesn't seem to be a serious academic opus.

It depends on how seriously you take it. You might prefer to take the view, once you've calmed down, that reacting energetically to the book could risk validating it. If I were you, I'd publish a dismissive but short review of it and move on.

You most certainly could be correct.

Its only a little inexpensive paperback.
Not an reference book of some note with new information.

People will realize its just another ploy for money with no value
other than commercialism for an subject easily used and
manipulated.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

It still hasn't arrived.

A question:

I don't understand why it would matter who translated what or, indeed, who did not. It doesn't strike me as much of a black mark in the first place to translate something, or a particularly significant error to misattribute translation.

What is the issue over this?

A mystified Sid.


P.S. Annelie, there is very little money in the academic publishing game. The reward for most academic authors is little more than enhanced professional kudos.

[Annelie]

P.S. Annelie, there is very little money in the academic publishing game. The reward for most academic authors is little more than enhanced professional kudos.

Understand that Sid.....after reading this thread I don't think
this commercial adventure will bring professional kudos?

Actually I read some of the feedbacks for the book and I
left with the feeling that I would rather give my money ($17)
to an author whom actually tries to put out an good unbiased
factual paper back/book.

[phylo_roadking]

Sid, its even more simple than that - tenure at the majority of the free world's universities and colleges actually DEPENDS on literate output! Especially in the multiplicity of US "regional" insitutions. Sometimes its quite remarkably explicit, along the lines of "to hold tenure an academic must be a publishing author and continue to be so, producing X number of accredited books and X number of mongraphs/articles within his fixed period of tenure".

Usually the ONLY way to buck this is to simply be the world's leading expert in one particular area - like Louis Warren of QUB here in Belfast was a low-volume author, but his work on King John was the "industry standard" when published some forty years ago and has never been equalled yet. The sort of masterwork that earns open-ended tenure.

I'm very tempted to say here....that the INTERNET itself has a lot to answer for in this matter. Their "subject matter" is simply sitting there waiting for them, it doesn't require much in the way of research, does it??? A beer at their elbow and a keyboard under their fingers and they're home and dry with "research material" enough for YEARS.

We will see a LOT more books over the coming years on how the Internet has skewed people's apparent perception of events, people and places...because its simply, easy and QUICK to do. For example, I already know of a couple of "coffee table tomes" on self-doctoring, homeopathic medicine etc., and how public acceptance of mainstream medical care and advice is changing because of the Internet. The Net isn't going to go away, and of course authors are going to jump on the pundit bandwagon.

[Qvist]

That's far cheaper than going to Law and far more effective than locking horns with those responsible, who are cut from the same cloth as the hardcore of trolls who devote so much time to derailing discussion on this website and others.

Debate in the face of agitprop exercises like this may be satisfying in the short run but it is ultimately futile. If we did not know that Smelser and Davies existed, we might wonder if they were pseudonyms adopted by a couple of the small but highly vocal hardcore of trolls who come here solely for the purposes of derailing any discussion that proposes the sort of perspectives people like Alan Dershowitz, for instance, find intolerable.

These people are protected on most of these websites because they represent the views and interests of quite a powerful movement whose bullyboys have ways of bringing pressure to bear upon webmasters and moderators who do not toe their line. This book by Ron Smelser and Edward J Davies II, targeting this website, Jason Pipes and several other people, for instance, may well be a bullying tactic. It certainly doesn't seem to be a serious academic opus.


PK

I don't know, a couple of times now whole pages have been deleted from this discussion, so clearly something in them is disapproved of by Forum management. Since however no comments of clarification has been offered, it is open to interpretation just what that is. In light of this, it is perhaps not surprising that the thread then immediately moves into the same territory of making a grab for the "soul" of the forum by trying to speak on behalf of it (as is the case with your post Paddy), which then naturally invites a response. This sort of thing can go on for quite some time. And when it no longer does, the forum will have defined itself.

[John P. Moore]

I posted the below comments on the Amazon.com Web site.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/05 ... ewpoints=1

(The original URL has been changed to reflect the new URL where I expanded upon the comments below and made them a separate review)


I am not sure who these "historians" are respected by. I have read the book. It is replete with factual errors and the hackneyed writing style is filled with trite expressions such as "guru" and "romancer". These professors could clearly benefit from a refresher course in English Composition. The authors go so far as to impugn the reputation of the famous Luftwaffe fighter pilot, Erich Hartmann, by implying that he is linked to the Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camps on page 173. On page 251 they repeatedly misspell Joachim Peiper's name as "Piper" and claim that this personality "appear in the works of gurus such as Mark Yerger", however, I have read all of the excellent works of Mark Yerger and don't recall him having written about Peiper. On page 178 the authors say that Rudolf von Ribbentrop served in the "Das Reich" division in 1943. That is not correct as Ribbentrop was a member of the LAH at the time. The authors spend a lot of time in the first and final parts of the book in praising the Soviet military and referring to various authors and other personages throughout the book as being "anti-communists" which makes one wonder about the ideological leanings of the authors. This book is sure to spread confusion among readers and will probably end up being a source of embarrassment to the University of Utah and the publisher.

[sid guttridge]

Hi John P. Moore,

Mine has arrived.

I don't think the implication is to Hartmann being directly connected with Auschwitz and Buchenwald. It would appear to refer to his proverbial "battered shield" - i.e, the cause he was protecting. The following rather ridiculously over blown quote, that would probably embarrass Mills & Boone, contains the part you refer to:

"The battered shield of the Blond Knoght is still carried with honor, and its escutcheons are still bright. More names of glory may yet be emblazoned on it (Auschwitz? Buchenwald?) for its fair haired bearer is still a formidable participant in the tournament of life. The time has come to explore with him his story as a hero of the joust, the depth of his torment while in bondage, and his unforgettable romance with his beautiful lady"

Immediately after it the authors of "The Myth of the Eastern Front" write:

"One wants to take nothing away from Hartmann in terms of skill and daring as a fighter pilot. However, to divorce his exploits from the regime, which he loyally served and from whose leader he accepted its second highest decoration, renders no service." It seems a fair enough point - if the book they are referring to actually does so..

However, I agree that it was unproffessional for the authors of "The Myth of the Eastern Front" to editorialise within the quote by inserting (Auschwitz? Buchenwald?)


Does it matter much in the greater scheme of things which W-SS unit Rudolf von Ribbentrop served in? Or that Peiper's name is spelt wrong? It is certainly better to get one's facts right, but do these errors alter the substance of the charges in the book in any significant way?

Sid.

[Uncle Joe]

Of course it does matter (those errors) as if the basics are wrong can they get anything right? And if that Hartmann quote is as you copied it in the book, then the authors again perverted one of the basics of scientific quoting of exactly marking where the quote has been altered.

Or would you take authors seriously if they referred to you as "Sit Kuttritke"?

[phylo_roadking]

but do these errors alter the substance of the charges in the book in any significant way?

Well, in an english court - yes LOL I've had mates walk on traffic offenses etc. because their initials were the wrong way round!

On a more serious note - mistakes like these, and all the inaccuracies ALREADY mentioned, are the sort of inaccuracies academics can't afford. Different for a "hobbyist" historian, researching and writing on his own particular area of interest....a side to German military history they apparently totally ignore!....but academic historians need to be SEEN to be right and as importantly be good at "being" right. Look at - for example - Irving; until his reputation trashed itself, wasn't THIS exactly what it rode high upon, the "quality" of its research and "accuracy"? THIS is like saying - hey, we're not writing about history, we're writing about popular perception of it, so who needs accuracy...."yo"

Academics need reputations; not among the buying public, but among their peers I wonder how many colleague historians will be cringing at even just THOSE two consistent spelling mistakes?

[Paddy Keating]

In light of this, it is perhaps not surprising that the thread then immediately moves into the same territory of making a grab for the "soul" of the forum by trying to speak on behalf of it (as is the case with your post Paddy), which then naturally invites a response. This sort of thing can go on for quite some time. And when it no longer does, the forum will have defined itself.

I'm not sure why you think I am trying to speak on behalf of this forum. I am merely making the observation that a lot of worthwhile topics have been ruined over the years but a small but vocal group of individuals and a lot of interesting contributors have been discouraged from participating, including some WW2 veterans. The consequent deterioration of quality of content is quite noticeable in some of the sections. I do blame the trolls. This is not to say that I do not welcome reasoned and even heated debate, Qvist. You and I disagree about all sorts of things but I respect your viewpoints and I would always defend your right to disagree with me. I hope that you would do the same. Only by understanding the past can we hope to navigate the future. Understanding the nature of National Socialism within the parameters of a website dealing largely with the armed forces fielded by the German NS regime is very important if we are to avoid mistakes in the future. Understanding Bolshevism is just as important. So is understanding Capitalism. If one understands who was behind these systems, one is closer to understanding how the world functions, for want of a better verb in the context of dysfunctional dystopia.

PK

[Richard Hargreaves]

Does it matter much in the greater scheme of things which W-SS unit Rudolf von Ribbentrop served in? Or that Peiper's name is spelt wrong? It is certainly better to get one's facts right, but do these errors alter the substance of the charges in the book in any significant way?

Sid.

Hi Sid,

Absolutely. As a journalist one of the first things drummed into me many years ago at training school was accuracy (yeah, hard to believe knowing the state of journalism in the UK. ).
Double check names, ages, addresses. John Smith could be John Smyth, an entirely different person.
We were told quite simply: get the little things right and the big ones follow. But if you get the little things wrong, then who can trust the rest of your articles?

If these authors are serious academics, then they really ought to get facts like Peiper's name spelled correctly. Christ, it's not as though he's an obscure German soldier but one of the most infamous... And it's not hard to find which unit Ribbentrop belonged to either. A trawl of Feldgrau would reveal that and I believe the authors visited here.

[Richard Hargreaves]

It is not easy to sue for libel in the UK. In any case, you would be serving your writ for libel or defamation on CUP's US operation in New York City. You might even win. But it would cost you a lot of money and it would then cost you even more trying to enforce any judgement obtained against the Cambridge University Press and the authors.

I would concur wholeheartedly with Paddy and advise heavily against sueing unless (a) the case is watertight (b) you have lots of money to pay for a lawyer (c) you have lots of money to pay for their lawyers and any potential fine. The only people who really win in a libel case are the lawyers. Much better to resolve differences before the legal eagles get involved.

Mercifully in my journalistic career, I've never been sued personally for libel but I have been taken to the Press Complaints Commission by a serial killer who didn't like what I wrote about him.

[Jason Pipes]

My book arrived yesterday. I've been reading it ever since. I'm not very impressed.

This book puts forth some very troubling assumptions that attempts to lump together a wide range of people including amateur historians, researchers, authors, vets, reenactors, wargamers, and collectors into a newly coined typology they refer to as "romancers". They repeatedly use critically flawed statements such as "this is the sort of material all romancers crave" and "all romancers love this sort of detail" among other spurious comments. The book is startlingly un-academic in it's approach and paints disparate groups with entirely different focuses as all being "romancers" because of a supposedly sinister whitewashing the authors see as common place. One of the most serious academic and logical flaws is found when they lay down a thesis and follow it up with supporting evidence that are in fact simply antidotal references that are often times unrelated to their point in the first place. In addition they repeatedly spell names incorrectly, refer to things that never occurred, misrepresent statements or comments, and worst of all claim as fact things that never actually occurred (the most notable so far being the already mentioned reference to my supposed working with noted Holocaust denier Richard Landwehr). This last element is what may rise to the level of legal challenge. Cambridge University Press and the authors have been contacted and a dialogue is being established at this time.

I will provide a more detailed review shortly.

Please also note, there is a major difference between healthy academic opinion or discussion and unchecked, unverified, false statements that have the ability to damage ones image or reputation. I personally take offense at being linked to noted Holocaust deniers and firmly believe anyone of sound mind and opinion would consider any established connection as being negative.

[Yerger]

Interesting I'm credited as primarily a publisher when I did 1 book myself and the dozen others I've written were published by Fedorowicz, Schiffer, and Bender. The authors seem to lack most facts. I don't recall ever having done a book on Peiper (note correct spelling) or the "Leibstandarte." Although, I would be interested to know how many times the word guru is used in the book, it must set a new record. The authors are obviously low knowledge with little grasp of research, facts, or insight. Anyone absorbing the book as gospel is obviously a lost cause in both IQ level or actual historical insight. I'm really to busy actually researching and compiling texts with new factual information to concern myself with such dribble. Thanks to all who mentioned me in a defensive manner, I'll let what I've done speak for itself. Been doing it a long time and will continue to do so. I did see someone write except (on Amazon ?) for 2 of my books, they contain no research. Considering "Riding East" was the first detailed Cavalry Brigade history, "Allgemeine-SS" couldn't have much more hard data, "Waffen-SS Commanders" has all known information, and the current German Cross series is a totally detailed topic not undertaken previously, the author must simply be allergic to illustrations. Thank God others besides the "academic" community write, or we'd have no detailed texts of any type.

Mark C. Yerger

[John P. Moore]

I decided to change my comments to very good K Richter's review on Amazon to a regular review in the hope that it would have more adverse impact on that sorry book.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/05 ... ewpoints=1

I added a couple of other points which were -

"On page 170 the authors charachterize the members of the Waffen-SS as "indifferent to danger and death, a collection of Rambos". Then on page 43 they say that Walter Schellenberg was a major general in the Waffen-SS when the man was only a member of the SD. The authors appear to be confused over the structure of the SS."

John