Shocking new book references Feldgrau.com extensively...

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:47 pm

Anyone absorbing the book as gospel is obviously a lost cause in both IQ level or actual historical insight

How are things in the land of lost causes, kunikov?.....

Yerger · Post by **Yerger** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:03 am

Perhaps one of the more effective counters would be well worded and thought out commentary on the Amazon site due to size of its buyers. At present there is a 50/50 split as to value of the book.

Mark Yerger

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:56 am

Hi Uncle Joe,

Remember, this book is about "The Myth of the Eastern Front". It is about what is calls "romancers" and "gurus" of this "myth".

This book is not an attack on the W-SS, German Army, etc., It is an attack on the representation of it in some contemporary books, periodicals, film, TV, etc. It is about the activities of Landwehr not Hartmann, Jason not Wittman, etc.

All the attacks on the book so far seem to be nit-picking at diversionary targets. We have had complaints about the style. We have had analogy to East German histories. We have had worries about the spelling of Peiper's name. We have diversions about Ribbentrop being in a different W-SS unit than the authors claim.

However, none of these address the substance of the book's proposition.

As I said before, 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, given that its target is different?

And, frankly I don't think it matters if I am referred to as Sit Kuttritke. You are probably not Uncle Joe. It is the content of our posts that matter, not the spelling of the name attached to them. Besides, I have been called far worse on Feldgrau without complaining!

Cheers,

Sit Kuttritke.

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:08 am

Hi Halder,

I have already said that it is better to get things right.

However, you didn't answer my accompanying question: "....but do these errors alter the substance of the charges in the book in any significant way?"

But how does a spelling mistake and the misattribution of the unit of one not very significant individual 60 years ago alter the substance of the proposition of the book, which is about the representation of the Eastern Front in some contemporary books, periodicals, film, TV, etc.?

Certainly minor errors are hostages to fortune and can be used by opponents to beat the authors with, but they are pretty flimsy sticks and don't address the substance of the book at all.

Cheers,

Sid.

Yerger · Post by **Yerger** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:09 am

Authors write data/facts, and in some cases opinions. It is up to readers to form conclusions after absorbing a number of sources. Any author can generate hate against a race, religion, etc. To conclude all of one type of people is one way is illogical. I've read long excerpts, seems the authors are more than anti-German to the point of bashing anyone presenting just facts or a different opinion. Having said that, I return to the text I'm working on, its more productive than mud throwing. To each their own, though I doubt the book will be a million copy seller personally.

Mark Yerger

Yerger · Post by **Yerger** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:02 am

As asked, I'll elaborate on my earlier comment. All books, including my own, contain data errors (hopefully few) but anyone writing has an objective. For me it’s the structure and development of units in detail. Also biographical research regarding awards with dates, promotions, assignments with dates, explanation of the unit/assignments, reasons for major awards, predecessors and successors. The books or movies of the 1950s and 1960s where every German was a sociopath camp guard and any Japanese soldier wore thick glasses and had buck teeth are outdated. Likewise not all Russian troops raped German civilians. Good, bad and indifferent existed on all sides, Allied included. The authors of this new tome seem rather pointed in viewing every soldier of the German armed forces as anything but individuals. It is the same today when someone assumes every Arabic person is a terrorist. The Holocaust is a fact, but its not my specific area of research or designated goal, my aim is the study of combat soldiers and unit development. Personally, I have no more interest in the politics of WWII than the hot air politics of the present day world, reality and theory are two different parts of politics. Obviously the authors lean in a direction with minimal background knowledge in many areas they profess to have expert insight. I’d consider the term “guru” a complement were it not used in every other sentence when discussing current researchers and assume others mentioned feel the same. At the sacrifice of many aspects of a normal life due to the time involved in what I’ve written, I’m satisfied I’ve added a considerable amount of knowledge to my topic of interest. One reviewer said only 2 of my books had research, though I fail to see where MORE new data could have been added to “Allgemeine-SS”, the two “Waffen-SS Commanders” volumes, the first SS Cavalry Brigade history, or the current German Cross holder series I’m producing. I’ll assume other books on the topics I’ve covered haven’t appeared as insufficient new data can be added to them to warrant a publisher spending the costs of a new text. I also assume, for whatever reason, some commentators are allergic as “academics” to illustrations, unlike the readership that wants them. Somewhere I was mentioned as mostly a publisher. I’ve only done 1 volume at my own expense, all of the more than a dozen others being published by Fedorowicz, Schiffer, and Bender Publishing. Facts seem inaccurate throughout the book, but I’ve never counted on so called bona fide academics to produce anything of worth in my field. Detailed texts come from veterans or enthusiasts as they have more than the one time acquisition of a diploma as motivation. A reader should read a vast amount of material and form his own conclusion, not absorb and accept a single text. I generate books with a vast amount of facts and data. I’ve been doing so for a rather long time and, health permitting, will continue to do so. The fact what I write is published testifies to the high interest in the topic and equally high level of factual data knowledge the readership wishes to obtain.

Annelie · Post by **Annelie** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:29 am

Facts seem inaccurate throughout the book, but I’ve never counted on so called bona fide academics to produce anything of worth in my field. Detailed texts come from veterans or enthusiasts as they have more than the one time acquisition of a diploma as motivation. A reader should read a vast amount of material and form his own conclusion, not absorb and accept a single text. I generate books with a vast amount of facts and data. I’ve been doing so for a rather long time and, health permitting, will continue to do so. The fact what I write is published testifies to the high interest in the topic and equally high level of factual data knowledge the readership wishes to obtain.

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:08 pm

What, if any the specific claims laid at Feldgrau's door?

Do they give examples or are we just listed under a blanket of a 'romancer'?

Regards

Andy H

Richard Hargreaves · Post by **Richard Hargreaves** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:11 pm

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Halder,

I have already said that it is better to get things right.

However, you didn't answer my accompanying question: "....but do these errors alter the substance of the charges in the book in any significant way?"

Hi Sid,

I can't really answer the second point having not read the book (it's sitting on my wish list), but I go out of my way in my books to check and double check really small facts (like the colour of someone's curtains and carpet!) Maybe I'm unique being that pedantic, but I still maintain that if the simple facts are wrong (and "Piper" is a pretty simple fact...) then it sets a train of doubt running in my mind.

That said, I agree with the general hypothesis of the book and am somewhat disturbed by what I call a "Waffen SS fetish", although part of me thinks it less to do with glorifying Nazism than publishers' obsession with elite/special forces...

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:25 pm

As asked, I'll elaborate on my earlier comment. All books, including my own, contain data errors (hopefully few) but anyone writing has an objective. For me it’s the structure and development of units in detail. Also biographical research regarding awards with dates, promotions, assignments with dates, explanation of the unit/assignments, reasons for major awards, predecessors and successors. The books or movies of the 1950s and 1960s where every German was a sociopath camp guard and any Japanese soldier wore thick glasses and had buck teeth are outdated. Likewise not all Russian troops raped German civilians. Good, bad and indifferent existed on all sides, Allied included. The authors of this new tome seem rather pointed in viewing every soldier of the German armed forces as anything but individuals. It is the same today when someone assumes every Arabic person is a terrorist. The Holocaust is a fact, but its not my specific area of research or designated goal, my aim is the study of combat soldiers and unit development. Personally, I have no more interest in the politics of WWII than the hot air politics of the present day world, reality and theory are two different parts of politics. Obviously the authors lean in a direction with minimal background knowledge in many areas they profess to have expert insight.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not sure I altogether agree with it. As far as I'm concerned, the relevance of treating subjects like war crimes, nazification and so on is relative to the subject. I have some difficulty understanding why these are topics to be avoided for instance with regard to biographical research of SS officers, where they seem intuitively to have a direct relevance - they were after all officers in an organisation that had a direct and explicit ideological rationale. As far as I know, the SS Cavalry Brigade were extensively engaged in anti-partisan operations, which directly raises the issue of reprisals and so on. In these cases it is not a question of putting warfare in a wider context of war aims and ideology, but simply of the day to day activities of the formation. I have not read your books so I do not know how and if you address this, but it seems to me far-fetched to argue that subject matter like this can be meaningfully treated without reference to such factors.

cheers

Post by **John P. Moore** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:11 pm

If Mark Yerger's books are not meaningful, why would so many people purchase them over and over again? People who want to read about the Holocaust and war crimes can find plenty of other titles with which to whet their appetites. Most people who want to read about the military activities of the German Wehrmacht are not interested in being reminded about slimy Nazi politicians and their criminal activities.

John

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:38 pm

Yerger wrote:I gave Oradour as an example of the unit I studied most, seeing it as a constant factor by some in relating the division's history and actions of ALL its personnel in wartime as rather unbalanced. Reading my post again should make the point I tried to make more clear. Several posts after that seem to have not grasped the intent of the statements, but just my opinion of course.

Mark,

I repeat, nobody here has stated that Oradour is the responsibility of every person that ever served in Das Reich. Why do you keep suggesting as much?
The point raised here is that some authors /commentators/gurus (whatever one wants to call them) have written extensively about 2.SS without ever giving proper reference to their participation in serious war-crimes.

I am not familiar with your owns works, but Jason’s historical overview of 2.SS-Panzer-Division Das Reich (as mentioned above) certainly appears to contain one such example.

In fact if one takes a look at Feldgrau’s overall approach to the SS ( http://www.feldgrau.com/ss.html ) one is hard pressed to find a single mention of any wrong doing of the SS or Waffen-SS. There is a whole wealth of detailed information regarding individual units but not once (according to my readings) is there any mention of the participation of SS or Waffen-SS units being involved in war-crimes. Any detailed information on the Einsatzgruppen for example, appears to be almost invisible.

Regards,

André

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:42 pm

Well, after all - there is a VERY small chance that it has something to do with THIS...

Feldgrau's policy on the issue of war crimes is that discussions of war crimes, ala "xyz unit did xyz thing at xyz place and date" is fine (in the proper forum) as long as it remains TOTALLY neutral and unbiased either for or against it. Ours is not a place to judge, condemn or defend but to simply study and hope to understand. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a full picture of, say, the 2nd SS, but to go off on a rant "for" or "against" the division in this context is just totally out of line in a place dedicated to research, not polemics.

Does it look familiar? It's one of the "House Rules" at feldgrau - and experience has taught us that such unbiased discussion CAN'T take place....so are MOSTLY avoided LOL.

AND as you know, overt discussion of the Holocaust is banned, so that sort of puts a cap on being able to discuss the Einsatzgruppen!

AHF or Feldpost covers that and permits discussion if you feel that desperate.

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:59 pm

phylo_roadking wrote:Well, after all - there is a VERY small chance that it has something to do with THIS...

Feldgrau's policy on the issue of war crimes is that discussions of war crimes, ala "xyz unit did xyz thing at xyz place and date" is fine (in the proper forum) as long as it remains TOTALLY neutral and unbiased either for or against it. Ours is not a place to judge, condemn or defend but to simply study and hope to understand. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a full picture of, say, the 2nd SS, but to go off on a rant "for" or "against" the division in this context is just totally out of line in a place dedicated to research, not polemics.
Does it look familiar? It's one of the "House Rules" at feldgrau - and experience has taught us that such unbiased discussion CAN'T take place....so are MOSTLY avoided LOL.

AND as you know, overt discussion of the Holocaust is banned, so that sort of puts a cap on being able to discuss the Einsatzgruppen!

AHF or Feldpost covers that and permits discussion if you feel that desperate.

Phylo,

I am not talking about discussion in the forums. I am talking about Jason’s historical overview of units such as 2.SS-Panzer-Division Das Reich on felgrau.com and his general approach to the SS and Waffen-SS – links to both I have provided.

Do you think omitting, in such an overview, any detail whatsoever on war-crimes relating to units such as Das Reich provides a balanced and objective overview of said formation? I don’t, and that is an example of why I think Jason has left himself open to criticism on this matter.

Regards,

André

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:11 pm

Actually, you're not correct. Why? Because jason actually sets out his stall and the parameters of the site, PARTICULARLY the unit histories VERY clearly...

Our main focus is on the operational histories of the units and organizations that made up the German army, navy and airforce...

The Armed SS 1933-1945- The units, formations and organizations of the Armed SS, from the largest Army to the smallest independent Battalions

Maybe its just me, but war crimes don't NORMALLY fall under the category of "military operations", and the unit history/organisation element is QUITE clear. He may in your eyes have limited himself - but he THEN works within those limits. THAT is the point.

Question - have you ever worked for an ISO-accredited company???