Talk:Heinz Nawratil

Untitled

Heinz Nawratil writes not only about the expulsion but also about flight of Germans and about war.Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement posted by User:Gentleman 1806

1. I have never written for the “Institute for Historical Review”.

But my “diatribe for Alfred Schickel” which I delivered during a meeting of Mr. Schickel`s institute in the presence of about 200 persons, existed in a written form. Apparently, somebody sent this paper to America without my knowledge.

Statement posted by Dr. Heinz Nawratil

My book "Schwarbuch der Vertreibung" (Black Book of Expulsion) met with a lively response from leading newspapers, radio stations and internationally renowned historians like Prof. Alfred de Zayas or Prof. Gotthold Rhode, and only very few critical voices arose, for instance Martin Broszat (who was reveled as polemicist later on - see the original document on my home page "http://www.heinz-nawratil.de/") or Ingo Haar, who certainly can not be called an internationally renowned historian. To my surprise, all positive commentaries but one were eliminated and only the two negative ones stayed. Even the official document calling Broszat a polemicist disappeared. So the only conclusion can be that some people are using wikipedia for agitation instead of information. By the way, two of my books were taken out of the chapter "selected publications" i.e.: - Strafrecht leicht gemacht - Die Versöhnungsfalle (München 2011) Robin Hood 2011 26. 10. 11 (CET)

2. I have never written for a Grabert Verlag publication. I did write a contribution to the book “50 Jahre Vertreibung” (50 years of expulsion) which was published by the Hohenrain Verlag. When I wrote this article (one amongst 50 others) in 1994/95, there were no informations available that Hohenrain publishing house might be a radical political power.

3. The historian Martin Broszat (Munich Institute of Contemporary History) has described my works as “polemics … from a rightist point of view”. But the superviser of this Institute, the Bavarian Prime Minister, did not share this opinion. In his letter of April 3rd, 1985, he described the move of Mr. Broszat as polemic and not scientific, and he provided an official rebuke in the same year (Schreiben des Bayerischen Ministerpräsidenten vom 03.04.1985).

4. To accuse my old friend Alfred Schickel to be “known for Holocaust denial” is an impertinent lie – pure fantasy. Schickel was head of the local Catholic Educational Institute, he is well-known and respected by Jewish institutions like the American Leo Baeck Institute. Many of the public lecturers and speakers of his own institute meetings are Jewish. If a journalist calls such a man ”far right”, the journalist himself must be far left.

5. James Bjork`s criticism of my “Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung” (Black Book of Expulsion) makes me shake head for several reasons.

a) Mr. Bjork does not like the “victimizing” of deported Germans. But how can you write about Katyn massacre for instance, without victimizing Polish officers?

b) In my Polish chapter (one out of seven), I do not describe “exclusively the mistreatment” but on seven pages the background of Polish-German relations.

c) The book`s bibliography does not include “many publications of the Nazi regime”. Only one book of 350 (!) is a white paper of the German Foreign Office, published in 1940. The eastern European authors are not “ignored completely”. The bibliography mentions eight of them.

Statement of Bavarian Prime Minister, April 3rd, 1985; PDF

______________________________

This statement was posted by User:Gentleman 1806--Dodo19 (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the light of this, we can easily conclude that the Category:Pseudhistory as persistently introduced by the long term abuser from the IP range 78... is just another WP:BLP violation. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

cf. Haar on this matter.--78.53.41.86 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No, the problem here is the removal of sourced information from the article. This has been a subject of two discussions on BLP (though indirectly) and both times the consensus was that well sourced info can be presented in Wikipedia BLP articles and that in this case the sourcing was more than adequate. The criticisms above don't address the sources - except possibly with regard to the publication in the Holocaust denial journal, which the user above claims was sent in without his (if this is indeed Nawratil) knowledge - but rather just dismiss them. This is also no different then if David Duke or Kevin B. MacDonald or some other controversial figure showed up on their article page and wanted well sourced criticisms removed. This should be addressed (again).

I don't see the IP's edits as "long term abuse" - sure, they disagree with your POV but there's little abusive about them (aside from common mistakes often made by inexperienced users). I have no opinion on the Category of Pseudohistory.radek (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I also like how first all references and citations were removed from the article and then the citations needed tag was added.radek (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't pretend to have a consensus, where there's none. There are two or perhaps 3 users from German Wikipedia (one of course User:Dodo19, either logged in or not, the other - here as anon from 78 range is most probably the biased user account in de.wiki, known for attempts at whitewashing Stalin's Great Terror). They keep adding cherrypicked stuff to fit their agenda of painting a certain scholar as complete fringe author.
First, you, Radeksz, have no-where demonstrated any expertise on German subjects like that, Ueberschär e.g. was in a way funny choice by you. Based on your userpage, I conclude that you don't read German, unlike gemanophone (but not German) users who have raised the concerns since Dec. 2009
So you probably have difficulty verifying, that the sources such users present as a rule simply do not contain what they claim those to contain. Also, you have demonstrated no prior knowledge on Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt (where you just reverted to an old, disputed version) or editing of the articles Heinz Nawratil and Franz W. Seidler. You just followed my edits and chimed in at Talk:Franz W. Seidler and now here, supporting the view of a couple of German editors.
If your concern is to improve articles on living persons, I can't understand how you can argue the real problem is “removal of sourced information” The version was based on falsifications!.
The author says he has never published anything for a certain publishing house: but there our anonymous Hongweibings claim he did so (on a daily basis?) “alongside the likes of Jorg Haider and DVU Chief Gerhard Frey” (if this is not guilt by association fallacy, what is?). As if this were not enough, a vicious comment was added, describing how “The Grabert Verlag has been described as a leading right wing publisher in Germany specializing in Holocaust denial, ” etc etc, all of which having nothing to do with the subject, but having much to do with painting an ugly picture of him! This is more remindful of ED, than of a real encyclopedia!
And the fact that you compared the subject at hand with David Duke just speaks for itself. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• The consensus I was referring to was on BLP Noticeboard [2].
• I'm gonna ignore all the personal attacks above - discuss content not editors.
• You seem to be saying that only German speakers should be allowed to edit German related subjects. This is silly, not to mention not based on any kind of Wikipedia policy. It is particularly wrong when talking about articles on German historical revisionism and related subjects, which deal with the history of Germany's neighbors. Finally, the sources are often in English, which I can read well enough, thank you very much.
• I've edited Nawratil way before you got here. Similarly I had ZFI and associated articles, like Seidler, on my watchlist for a long time.
• The previous version was not "based on falsifications" but on sources - which were found to be more than adequate in the BLP Noticeboard discussion linked to above - but which were then removed.
• In particular the claim that he published alongside Haider and Frey was documented. I don't know if this is "guilt by association" but it is a verifiable fact.
• Grabert Verlag has indeeed been described in sources as a "a leading right wing publisher in Germany specializing in Holocaust denial", and it has everything to do with the subject as he's published with them.

radek (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the link, but saw no consensus. Skäpperöd argued convincingly that a number of sources brought forth were in their turn, not WP:RS. If there was an agreement, that probably was that there was no consensus to use Nawratil in hotly debated areas as a source. As for Haar, that you used, just check above, the historian himself made a convincing counterargument in this respect. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course Skapperod argued about the sources (he's also the one who removed them from this article) - his arguments may sound "convincing" to you, but apparently they weren't convincing to any of the uninvolved editors who commented at the RSN, all of whom disagreed with him; hence, consensus. The fact that Nawratil shouldn't be used as a source is of course obvious.

And what about Haar? I am referring to Haar quoting Broszat. What historian are you talking about?radek (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

According to Shermer/Grobman, Pseudohistory is "the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes". This fact is sufficiently proven by Ingo Haar's article Die deutschen Vertreibungsverluste. Forschungsstand, Kontext und Probleme, in: Rainer Mackensen, Jürgen Reulecke, Josef Ehmer: Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts "Bevölkerung" vor, im und nach dem "Dritten Reich": zur Geschichte der deutschen Bevölkerungswissenschaft., VS Verlag, 2009, ISBN 9783531161525, p.373 ("Die bewußt verfälschende Darstellung Nawratils bei seiner Auswertung der Grauschrift des Kirchlichen Suchdienstes lag darin, dass er nach eigenen Angaben gar keine Kenntnis vom Orginal dieser Studie hatte.") This is a fact Haar establishes, not an opinion he states.

A I mentioned in the edit summary - whatever Haar has to say we cannot refer to it as Pseudo History unless a reliable source refers to it as pseudo history - we do not research, we record reliable, verified sources. In terms of the article itself; because it is the primary source we must attribute the claim directly rather than presenting it as fact - if we have a very solid reliable source that critically analyses Haar's claims and says it is true then there may be rationale for the wording you propose. I would support changing "claims" to something more neutral - like "says" for example --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is, that all reviews on Nawratil's "historical works", have been removed by User:Skäpperöd. Fact is, Nawratil is not really considered to be a historian in the first place, so we should remove the category:German historians altogether - in that case we wouldn't need the Pseudohistory category. As long as he is referred to as a "historian" we need to address the issue of reliability, which has been first challenged by Martin Broszat in 1987, if I am not mistaken. Now, as Nawratil is not considered to be a historian, we might have to wait a very long time, until somebody actually mentions him in this context. And even if he is mentioned, it is most likely that Nawratil's defenders here will start mudslinging against any critics. On the other hand, if we leave the status quo, it would suggest, that Nawratil's work is in fact - what it not is - based on proper historical research. Now, what to do? --78.53.40.172 (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, neither the category "German historians" nor "Pseudohistory" belong here.radek (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Insult by Wikipedia users: Genocide-Denial

I am quite shocked to see how some extremists in Wikipedia try to insult the victims of genocide. The massmurder of over 2.0 Million children, babies, mothers and elderly people after WW II, mainly by Communist gangs, was not just an expulsion but an ethnic cleansing and a Genocide, according to the UN-Comission for Human Rights and by many reputed international scientists like Harvard-Alumnus Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas or Professor Dr. Felix Ermarcora, two renowned and internationally reputed scientists of international law. Also note that Heinz Nawratil is scientist of Law, too.

Who posted these offensive remarks?

In a 2009 article, German historian Ingo Haar claims that Nawratil distorted evidence in his 1982 study on German victims of the flight and expulsion in 1945/6. German historian Martin Broszat (former head of Institute of Contemporary History in Munich) has described Nawratil's works as "polemics written from a nationalist-rightist point of view" that "exaggerate in absurd way the scale of any crimes that accompanied the expulsion of Germans."

I regard these views as racist, anti-german, and highly offensive: They are trying to belittle a genocide. They are deleted.

Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat are very well known in Germany to be fanatics who have various times tried to minimize and slander the victims of genocide. They also have been known nationwide to insult Heinz Nawratil (and others who opposes their opinions) as "right-wing", while at the same time they publish their own extremist and genocide-denying views.

Please refrain from trying to belittle genocides's and please try to refrain from distorting historic facts. This is an Encyclopedia, and not a Disneyland-website for Hollywood-warpropaganda. There is no room in a Wikipedia for genocide-deniers. If i see such insults again, i will report the offenders to Wikipedia and ask for their permanent exclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBln (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC) PeterBln (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

By calling respectable German historians like Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat (!) "fanatics" you're engaging in BLP violations, and putting your own extremist bias on display. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Statement posted by Dr. Heinz Nawratil

My book "Schwarbuch der Vertreibung" (Black Book of Expulsion) met with a lively response from leading newspapers, radio stations and internationally renowned historians like Prof. Alfred de Zayas or Prof. Gotthold Rhode, and only very few critical voices arose, for instance Martin Broszat (who was revealed as polemicist later on - see the original document on my home page "http://www.heinz-nawratil.de/") or Ingo Haar, who certainly can not be called an internationally renowned historian. To my surprise, all positive commentaries but one were eliminated and only the two negative ones stayed. Even the official document calling Broszat a polemicist disappeared. So the only conclusion can be that some people are using wikipedia for agitation instead of information. By the way, two of my books were taken out of the chapter "selected publications" i.e.: - Strafrecht leicht gemacht - Die Versöhnungsfalle (München 2011) Robin Hood 2011 26. 10. 11 (CET)

Any reviews by Rhode can certainly be added in, but it's probably a good idea to avoid disparaging Broszat and Haar. Volunteer Marek  18:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you admit Rhode's review is OK, then could you please explain us, why was it necessary to remove the addition in the first place? If no objection is raised, I shall re-instate the review, since he is a serious scholar. Estlandia (dialogue) 12:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Because obviously that's not a "removal of an addition", but an undo of a unwarranted edit. Like I said, if someone wants to add in Rhode and has a source to back it up, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it's ok to try and sneak in other POV changes under the guise of "adding in Rhode".  Volunteer Marek  20:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Zayas and Rhode (both tightly linked to the Landsmannschaft) are probably the only "positive" reviews of Dr. Nawratil's oeuvre. Maybe the odd right-winger might have uttered support, but in general published opinion sided with Broszat, even if he was reprimanded by CSU-politicians (which is only implied in the scans of letters by the Bavarian government, who is no judge in this matter). But these fineries probably lost on Hundeführer Estland and his robber-friend. --92.229.61.196 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Look I don't care what kind of Maegerle-style Verbindungsketten you're drawing to discredit your opponents. That you once again resort to this tactics just lays bare the dishonesty of your conduct. As Rhode has actually many times more Google.Scholar hits than Ingo Haar, I see no reason to omit the former and include the latter. Estlandia (dialogue) 15:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you obvoiusly don't have any arguments, why don't you go and walk your dog? Mssrs Rhode and Zayas are heavily biased towards German refugees from the east, in fact Rhode himself has been forced to flee twice in his lifetime. And Google scholar is no measure for reputation, Rhode simply head fifty years head-start to publish and get quoted. But I figure these fineries are lost on you. Attaboy! --78.53.41.186 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The last version of Volunteer Marek doesn`t contain a validated list of references and has to be corrected.Jimbofreedom 2012 10. 06. 12 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbofreedom (talk • contribs) 10:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The revision 496876062 by Rumpelstilzchen 2012 is suitable for an encyclopedic article; Read the list of references Jimbofreedom 2012 10. 06. 12 (CET)

There are hundreds of articles about topic X where someone has written claims that X involves distortions or other sins. If the claims are notable, there can be an article about them. However, such claims are only acceptable in the article about X when secondary reliable sources verify that the claims are believed reasonable by a significant portion of experts in the field. Wikipedia cannot be used to promote someone's claims about X—either there are independent secondary reliable sources, or the claims do not get mentioned in an article about X. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Rumpelstilzhen keeps removing well sourced text, specifically reviews by prominent historians Martin Broszat and [[Ingo Haar], and replacing it by cherry picked quotes of dubious provenance. These include disparaging and unsourced claims about Broszat (you'd figure that a knowledgeable person could at least get the spelling right of this prominent historian's name).

To be explicit here - this is perfectly encyclopedic and well sourced text. However, just to avoid all the silliness and constant reverting by this user, I've basically paired down the article to just the basics. If this reverting continues I am going to restore the previous version of the article.VolunteerMarek 16:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

German wikipedia article is more extensive

And includes in depth review of his work, rejection by mainstream historians and connections to far right in Germany.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)