Shocking new book references Feldgrau.com extensively...

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:32 pm

Presuming Jason wrote the above, he himself stipulates that it’s “fine” to state “xyz unit did xyz thing at xyz place and date”. Hence the question, is why he chose to omit that Das Reich was involved in serious war-crimes in his historical overview

As I have stated, the absence of such information in detailed historical unit studies or overviews invites the criticism that the author is being unbalanced or is “romanticising” the unit concerned. Whether or not the author has somehow excused himself of having to acknowledge any wrong-doing of the unit or individual in question beforehand is actually rather irrelevant. Although I think in this case (Felgrau’s), Jason has clearly stated that such inclusion is “fine” yet he has still decided to wholly ignore it.

Regards,

André

PS: I have never worked for an ISO-accredited company - why do you ask?

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:47 pm

Presuming Jason wrote the above

Yes, I'm presuming he wrote it - because they're quotes from the http://www.feldgrau.com frontpage of the site!

And the answer is in the quotes - he's not producing historical overviews, but "operational histories" but something different.

ISO Accreditation. This was dreamt up in the late '80s after a series of industrial scandals in italy and Germany over Mafia involvement in the tender and contract procedure. Basically - a company writes down EVERYTHING it does in the from of Procedures and Work Instructions - and does NOTHING ELSE except what it sets down - THUS SIMPLY LEAVING NO ROOM FOR BROWN ENVELOPES OF BANKNOTES OR FOREIGN HOLIDAYS LOL A laudable position, I'm sure you'll agree?

My part of ICL suffered GREATLY from the accreditation process, because with the HUGE variety of jobs and responsibilites on the service desk we had a HUGE amount of ISO paperwork to keep updated

One day I had the chance to ask an ISO examiner a question that always had bothered me, and he answered in the affirmative after a bit of thought.....

Yes, IF a company had a correctly-formatted Procedure saying "How to obtain contracts by graft and bribe" and the appropriate Work Instructions....they COULDN'T withold accreditation!

Jason has set out the parameters his articles etc. are to meet and then met them. YOU may not like the limits he has set himself, but they're his limits and he worked 100% within them.

Would you for example expect to discuss Ford Mondeos on a Ford Fiesta forum? I don't think so. So don't expect to find something on the site that Jason hasn't set out to include.

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:58 pm

phylo_roadking wrote: Jason has set out the parameters his articles etc. are to meet and then met them. YOU may not like the limits he has set himself, but they're his limits and he worked 100% within them.

But Phylo, you are ignoring the fact Jason clearly stipulates:

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

Why then doesn't he acknowledge 2.SS crimes in his history of that Division? What exactly is preventing him?

Regards,

Andre

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:06 pm

Ahem. "Discussion" i.e. ON THE FORUM. His articles aren't on the Forum, they're on feldgrau.com, a DIFFERENT location. The House Rules apply to feldgrau.net. And yes, war crimes ARE discussed THERE on the forum.

TWO sections of the site, the House Rules apply to one where free discussion is available within those Rules, his own parameters apply to the other section.

Did you really NEED to be told the blindingly obvious?

Post by **John P. Moore** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:09 pm

Last weekend out of curiosity I read those chapters of the “The Myth…” that I had earlier skipped and was surprised by a couple of claims that the authors make. In Chapter 3 the authors would have us believe that a cabal of former Wehrmacht generals conspired to create a highly biased version of their combat experiences on the Eastern Front under the leadership of Franz Halder, the former chief of staff of the OKH. The authors report how as many as 700 former generals and other senior officers produced 2,500 major manuscripts for the US Army Historical Division between 1947 and 1961. These former German generals included such personages as Gotthard Heinrici, Günther Blumentritt, Heinz Guderian, Albert Kesselring, Hasso von Manteuffel, Lothar Rendulic, Georg Küchler, Adolf Heusinger and Geyr von Schweppenburg. These officers were said to have succeeded in creating a favorable view of the German military and an unfavorable image of the Soviets who had since become an ever increasing threat to the Western world. These generals ended up on quite friendly terms with a number of US generals and some even made official trips to the USA to lecture on military bases and at West Point on such topics as leadership and mobile warfare. Franz Halder was named an associate member of the US Naval Institute and received the Meritorious Civilian Service Award in November 1961 from President Kennedy in recognition of his work with the Historical Division. The authors go on to explain how the influence that Halder’s group had over a multitude of US military officers grew to include the present-day historians, researchers, collectors and reenactors, those troubled groups that the authors have labeled as “Gurus” and “Romancers”.

Later on the authors devote four pages to a discussion of Sven Hassel’s novels which they say on page 115 “feeds the romanticism of the Wehrmacht”. The authors say on page 116 that “The first book is allegedly the tale of Hassel’s own experience in the East; the others, fictional spinoffs.” However, an article in the Wikipedia reports that Sven Hassel is actually Børge Villy Redsted Pedersen, a Danish Nazi who never served on the Russian front. The example of Hassel’s novels then leads into a discussion of recently published memoirs by German veterans such as Koschorrek and Biedermann. One of the better ones, “Black Edelweiss” by Johann Voss was never mentioned. The authors emphasize how these books, which portray the Soviet military in an unfavorable manner, influence the thinking of the “Romancers”.
Throughout the authors make liberal use of the term, “anti-Communist”. They even remark how the author and former US Marine, Antonio Munoz, was an “anti-Communist”. Isn’t it odd that the authors would feel the need to repeatedly attribute that term to so many when it was such an appropriate position for those in the Western world to hold?

John

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:35 am

phylo_roadking wrote:Ahem. "Discussion" i.e. ON THE FORUM. His articles aren't on the Forum, they're on feldgrau.com, a DIFFERENT location. The House Rules apply to feldgrau.net. And yes, war crimes ARE discussed THERE on the forum.

TWO sections of the site, the House Rules apply to one where free discussion is available within those Rules, his own parameters apply to the other section.

Did you really NEED to be told the blindingly obvious?

Phylo,

Blindingly obvious? Jason states on the main page:

Our main focus is on the operational histories of the units and organizations that made up the German army, navy and airforce and all associated auxiliary formations both during the Weimar and NSDAP period.

Quite how you can interpret that to be no mention should or will be made about any wrong-doing or war-crimes committed by the units of the German-Armed Forces, is quite beyond me. What exactly in that statement for example, is preventing Feldgrau from giving an unit history of the Einsatzgruppen? A casual browser of this website is hard pushed to even find the word war-crime or any reference to units such as the Einsatzgruppe.

Even Jason himself states: (http://www.feldgrau.com/main2.php?ID=10)

Unit histories are the basis for Feldgrau but without context those histories are less significant.

Even, for arguments sake, if we take your approach, that Jason has indeed somehow exempted himself of any responsibility to mention German Armed Forces war-crimes and wrong-doing, how do you think that effects the website’s credibility and impartiality? Also, do you believe unit histories should not include or ignore war-crimes?

I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that Feldgrau should over emphasize or dwell on the crimes committed by the German Armed Forces, but for a site like this to so categorically fail to acknowledge such actions is bound to attract criticism.

Feldgrau is an excellently researched and a highly accurate factual website dedicated to the German Armed Forces, I like it, and I use it often. However, I do think this blatant absence of acknowledgement and the blatant ignoring of certain units that were heavily involved in war-crimes detracts from the credibility of the site, and I find it puzzling. Obviously I am not the only one as other people, including historians and academics appear to be writing books about this very issue.

Best regards,

Andre

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:40 am

Jason has NOT, as you put it "somehow exempted himself of any responsibility to mention German Armed Forces war-crimes and wrong-doing". War Crimes - the last time I looked - don't form part of the regular operations of military units; I don't recall a section in King's/Queen's Regulations or any US Army field manual regarding the correct procedure to be followed when intentionally breaking the Geneva Convention/HRLW....he has set out the parameters he wished to follow and did so. IF he wanted to run a site dealing with the history of the Einsatzgruppen, I'm sure he would- and like any website owner or anyone starting a project/task would set out his paramters for THAT - in modern terms a "mission statement".

YOU are the one choosing to identify the lack of a particular aspect as intetionally blinding oneself to it; the REST of us see it as wanting to/intending to concentrate on something he actually WANTED to do. Which, i do believe he is PERFECTLY at liberty to do. This is the INTERNET; people do "stuff" on it because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.

for a site like this to so categorically fail to acknowledge such actions is bound to attract criticism.

No. People have this strange inability to see the above obvious fact - that the Internet is voluntary- we CHOOSE to use/not use, peruse/not peruse, do business/not do business on it. If anyone doesn't like this absence - like you or me they are free to vote with their feet. Frankly, Scarlet. much of us just don't give a damn. You use a site, ANY site - if you get more out of it than it "costs" you in concern, worry and angst to use it

However, I do think this blatant absence of acknowledgement and the blatant ignoring of certain units that were heavily involved in war-crimes detracts from the credibility of the site, and I find it puzzling.

Then why force yourself? Its not as if it's like getting a tooth pulled. If you don't like a site, ANY site, thats run by a real live living PERSON and therefore contains judgement calls etc. based on his/her/their own interests/desires/wishes, you are free to TRY and find one elsewhere.....

Slight problem with that, isn't there? Yes...the Internet is run by PEOPLE for PEOPLE. If you don't happen to like people, or are unable to accept another's rights/wants/needs/desire as being at the very least JUST as important as yours, and thus can't take on board that worldwide streak of individualism that makes people actually WANT to run a website - you're going to run out of teeth to be pulled very damn' quick.

Obviously I am not the only one as other people, including historians and academics appear to be writing books about this very issue

This is true. That makes THREE of you. Only another seven billion nine hundred and ninety-nine million, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven to go....

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:56 am

Qvist - that from the other side of the coin is EXACTLY my point.

In short, as Michael Miller wrote - "Warts and all". That's what history is about. I couldn't care less if my eventual readers "want to read about it" or not.

You have your parameters, and work to them and within them. People can "opt in" by reading your material - or choose to "opt out" and not.

In the end it comes down to exactly TWO choices;

1/ YOUR choice as to what YOU want to do;

2/ EVERYONE ELSE'S choice as to whether they read or not.

But the FIRST is what's most important to you. It's the what/why/where/when of what YOU do. The REST of us are actually passive observers. We sometimes THINK we have more imput than we actually do, as a result of the Forum system - but actually we don't. YOU for example would and will continue to work as you wish because its your personal fulfilment.

Should any of us be telling you you're wrong?

I don't believe so. I happen to believe it's perfectly correct for you to be right about what you believe about and for yourself. Any decision about whether it's "right" or "wrong" is relative to MY point of view ONLY, when the two happen to meet.

But Andre for example seems to believe that his opinion on Jason and his work should matter more to Jason than Jason's OWN views.

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:01 pm

I disagree absolutely. I consider that these are simply basic rules of historiography. If you tailor your writing to what your audience wants, in terms of how you treat the subject matter, you are not writing history. If you want as a reader to have your books present events only in certain ways, I don't know what it is you are interested in, but it isn't history. History, in short, is not whatever each of us wants it to be.

cheers

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:52 pm

Ahem, have you actually READ what it says on the front page of jason's site? He doesn't "tailor his writing to what his audience wants", he's producing what HE wants. If you don't like it - like all people, you can move on. THAT is what I mean.

And OF COURSE you are free to disagree with me. That is entirely my point too. Noone is forcing you to read the site content, are they?

No, you're quite right, you don't know what I'm interested in - but neither do I try to force the SUBJECTIVE veracity of what's right or wrong down someone's throat - UNLESS they've tried to do it to me first

Because only THEN have they made a judgement call on my interests/beliefs in comparison to theirs and set the limits of the debate.

Your post is a perfect example of the point I was making about Andre's comments; you are making assumptions that you're uninformed to make, about what I accept or don't accept as standards. Let alone standards of historical proof. Have I for example EVER said anywhere on this forum that I've EVER read any of the material on the frontpage of the site? Why would I? Unit histories of the Wehrmacht and W-SS don't actually interest me.

BUT I'll defend Jason's right to do a thing however HE wants it, if he's paying good money to do it. Same as I'll defend YOUR right to say what you like, whether it be right or wrong. Only where any of it would cross what *I* hold to be right or wrong would I argue. And THEN I would still not question your right to say it - ONLY the right to say I'm wrong if I don't believe so, and argue/debate as appropriate. And usually only to show that I'm right in what I choose to believe - I wouldn't presume to convince anyone else...

...because if they WANT to be wrong, how could I improve on what they're doing for themselves?

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:58 pm

....and indeed historiography is a big word....

...but so is - specialisation. Ever heard of it?

Hans Weber · Post by **Hans Weber** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:03 pm

Hello

I agree to a certain extent.

The cognitive faculty of human beeings is such that objectivity is not possible, it can only be approximated. Jurisprudence has accepted this a long time ago. Take a simple motorcar accident and three witnesses. You will end up with three different versions, sometimes astonishingly varied. If we accept that we can't reproduce a series of events exactly how they were as viewed by an ominscient object viewer, we should also acceept that in each historiography, subjectivities creep in, often unknown to the writer himself. He can only strive for as much as objectivity as possible. A well researched story provides you with the sources. This is not a mere selfserving tool, but also accepting that sources - in itself limited by the person that prepared them - can be interpreted differently. Truth is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. What is also interesting to note is that subjectivity is usually connected with a political viewpoint. That's why you got nazi historiography, democrat historiography, communist historiography. And on a side note, the same process applies to the hearer or reader of a story. What he will not accept be it for lack of spirit or preset ideas etc, he really won't, often because it would otherwise become a question of loosing ones identity and thus security. So much for the use of arguing with certain individuals on feldgrau or the ideal of "herrschaftsfreier Diskurs" - alles Angsthasen .

Cheers
Hans

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:04 pm

Ahem, have you actually READ what it says on the front page of jason's site? He doesn't "tailor his writing to what his audience wants", he's producing what HE wants. If you don't like it - like all people, you can move on. THAT is what I mean.

Have I argued that he does?

And OF COURSE you are free to disagree with me. That is entirely my point too. Noone is forcing you to read the site content, are they?

No, you're quite right, you don't know what I'm interested in - but neither do I try to force the SUBJECTIVE veracity of what's right or wrong down someone's throat - UNLESS they've tried to do it to me first Because only THEN have they made a judgement call on my interests/beliefs in comparison to theirs and set the limits of the debate.

This is quite simply irrelevant nonsense. History has nothing to do with your personal preferences.

Your post is a perfect example of the point I was making about Andre's comments; you are making assumptions that you're uninformed to make, about what I accept or don't accept as standards. Let alone standards of historical proof. Have I for example EVER said anywhere on this forum that I've EVER read any of the material on the frontpage of the site? Why would I? Unit histories of the Wehrmacht and W-SS don't actually interest me.

BUT I'll defend Jason's right to do a thing however HE wants it, if he's paying good money to do it. Same as I'll defend YOUR right to say what you like, whether it be right or wrong. Only where any of it would cross what *I* hold to be right or wrong would I argue. And THEN I would still not question your right to say it - ONLY the right to say I'm wrong if I don't believe so, and argue/debate as appropriate. And usually only to show that I'm right in what I choose to believe - I wouldn't presume to convince anyone else...

...because if they WANT to be wrong, how could I improve on what they're doing for themselves?

First of all, I am attempting (EDIT; or rather, I WAS attempting, in a post that has now been removed without explanation) to discuss general issues that confront all researchers in the field, not to give a characterisation of Jason Pipes' work and have no idea whatsoever why you think I do. Secondly, anybody can of course do whatever they want. The question is rather what qualifies as competent and defensible historical work.

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:00 pm

Hello

I agree to a certain extent.

The cognitive faculty of human beeings is such that objectivity is not possible, it can only be approximated. Jurisprudence has accepted this a long time ago. Take a simple motorcar accident and three witnesses. You will end up with three different versions, sometimes astonishingly varied. If we accept that we can't reproduce a series of events exactly how they were as viewed by an ominscient object viewer, we should also acceept that in each historiography, subjectivities creep in, often unknown to the writer himself. He can only strive for as much as objectivity as possible. A well researched story provides you with the sources. This is not a mere selfserving tool, but also accepting that sources - in itself limited by the person that prepared them - can be interpreted differently. Truth is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. What is also interesting to note is that subjectivity is usually connected with a political viewpoint. That's why you got nazi historiography, democrat historiography, communist historiography. And on a side note, the same process applies to the hearer or reader of a story. What he will not accept be it for lack of spirit or preset ideas etc, he really won't, often because it would otherwise become a question of loosing ones identity and thus security. So much for the use of arguing with certain individuals on feldgrau or the ideal of "herrschaftsfreier Diskurs" - alles Angsthasen .

Cheers
Hans

Hello Hans,

I think that this is taking a much too understanding view of ideological bias. I do not think it is in fact very difficult to study history in an objective spirit if one wants to, nor to know when whatever bias one has interferes with it. In this, history is not much different from other humanities. Subjectivity is a fact of human existence, but that is no excuse for closing one's eyes to whatever part of reality can in fact be determined on a fairly objective basis. Many events are open to several interpretations of comparable validity, and when that point is reached, we have no other choice than to accept that's how it is. But that point is only reached when the process of objective inquiry has gone as far as it can go. I have zero understanding for those who choose to let subjective bias rule their interpretation from the very outset. We have nazi historiography and communist historiography not because of the inherent subjectivity of history, but because the adherents of these ideologies treat history as a propaganda tool, and write rubbish.

H

e can only strive for as much as objectivity as possible. A well researched story provides you with the sources. This is not a mere selfserving tool, but also accepting that sources - in itself limited by the person that prepared them - can be interpreted differently.

Here I agree with you, but I would add that a well-researched history does not merely give you the sources, it also discusses them, draws conclusions from them and synthesises them. That is the actual difference between chronicling and history-writing. And while sources can - frequently - be interpreted differently, that doesn't mean that every conceivable interpretation is equally valid, or made on an equally valid basis.

cheers

Jason Pipes · Post by **Jason Pipes** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:59 pm

Folks, I'm getting close to closing down this thread. Please keep discussion on topic.

To address some of the comments made above regarding lack of discussion of warcrimes in the SS section, please provide neutral examples of warcrimes that are missing and after evaluation they will be added to the histories accordingly. Sadly the SS isn't my speciality so I've never been able to devote as much time to that section as I have to other units and therefore some of the unit overviews are many years old and inadequate at best. If someone better than myself were to step forward and help us complete those histories in an unbiased manner it would go a long way towards resolving the concerns listed previously as well as rounding out a section that needs attention.