|
Does this article (especially ante my few edits) read to anyone else as if Germany was somehow the victim after Versailles and at the end of WWII...that war that began with the invasion of the Sudetenland? I think it is important to note that one of the results of the second world war was the displacement of many ethnic Germans from the east, but I think this article lacks context.... off to learn more from more sources...J Hofmann Kemp "too overwhelming..." for what? Not a complete sentence as it stands. Are you using 'Deutsche Reich' to mean the eastern territory? It's unclear. Did WW II begin Sep 1 ,1939 ? Did it begin at Versailles ? Read the notes on that in article WW II . You say , did it begin with the invasion of the Sudetenland ? I ask, what about the "Declaration of War against Germany by Judica of the World unite... " published March 4, 1933 in the Daily Express : I welcome it if that someone explains this. ::would you please tell us in what city the 'Daily Express' was published? 'Daily Express' is not an uncommon name for newspapers in English. Also, who was the world force of 'Judica,' whatever that was, to declare war? War is usually declared by sovereign nations against other sovereign nations; otherwise we call it "terrorism." You have inserted this fragment in MANY entries over and over. Please offer a source for it. --MichaelTinkler To Michael Tinkler , when you use the search engine www.webtop.com and type in :judea declares war on germany , daily express, you will find an article by the shofar archives on this. daily express was ( and still is) apparently a newspaper in London. There are other search engines, such as alta vista and other sites, which show the newspaper article I only found this recently and am astonished at the nearly 70 years of silence surrounding it . You are now telling me this 1933 act has been terrorism . I was curious so I read the article -it is about a bunch of different groups of Jews trying to orgainxe a boycott of German goods. No "War" except the title, no "Judea" except the title. Just some newspaper exaggeration. No one shooting anyone. And what does this have to do with a boat being sunk at the end of the war 12 years later? --rmhermen Deutsche Reich is the official name for Germany as of 1871. People that lived within the Deutsche Reich were/are citizen of the Deutsche Reich or "Reichs-Deutsche". Germans who lived outside the boundaries of the "Deutsche Reich" are "Volksdeutsche" or ethnic Germans . :Yes, that was the official name in German. This version of Wikipedia is in English. Good style might include the German translation in parentheses after the first occurence of the English term only, and the non-English words should be in italics: "The German Empire (Deutsche Reich) was made up of territory ..." "Ethnic Germans outside the German Empire (Volksdeutsche, in German)..." --MichaelTinkler Oh...THAT Daily Express. Although it's not a tabloid like The Sun, the Daily Express both now and in the past has often published with a definite political viewpoint. Few of its articles are unbiased and most of its headlines written to arouse some sort of passion. Before the war, I am fairly sure that it was also one of the more anti-Semetic (in that non-specific way so beautifully pictured in "The Remains of the Day") papers in Britain. Also, I am agreeing with Michael Tinkler that the German phrases should be cleaned up and English used as the main language in the English-language Wikipedia. Finally, I want to again mention that this article needs to be written in a less biased form. At present, it appears to be a backhanded apologia for Germany. At the least, it seems to equate the circumstances of the Germans in Eastern territories forcibly taken by their governments in previous centuries and forcibly settled by them with those of other "ethnically cleansed" populations. To this point, although I have heard of the expulsion of the Volksdeutsch from East-Central and Eastern Europe, I have never heard that there was any type of planned genocide carried out against them. J Hofmann Kemp To Michael Tinkler and J Hofmann Kemp Thank you for reading the article and for your input . I added an article on refugees , to J H Kemp's attention . There were 9 million Volksdeutsche plus 9 million Reichsdeutsche who were expelled. Volksdeutsche are people , who were not citizens of the Deutsche Reich-Germany , but were in earlier years Germans of the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps if this so called expulsion would not have been so minnimized ,as you demonstrate, all these millions and millions of refugees throughout all the world would not have to be. H. Jonat ::a style note -- if you begin a paragraph or new line with a space (an empty character) the line will print in smaller font and indented. It looks bizarre! It would help if you hit the PREVIEW button, clean up any typographical oddities, then SAVE. --MichaelTinkler Right -- Please try to understand the objections here:
So -- would Mssrs. Jonat, Joachim, et al. please contribute articles that enrich our knowledge by showing us the whole story? Thanks. -- [[J Hofmann Ke You are the experts in style and computer writing and I gladly let you enrich the stories. I leave the cleaning up of the text also to you. I am using 15th , 16th , 17th century maps to look at places and names . I am using Claudius Ptolemy : The Geography, Dover Publication original written ca 150 AD and Tacitus Agricola and Germania , written 98 AD, tranlation Mattingly . I am looking at www.familysearch.com (LDS) for places , actual films of actual church records . They are all original records, if duplicates, it state so. http://www.familysearch.com go to the bottom rights side, click , then click on place , type in the cities , click on church records. You will find all church records,filmed by the LdS? , films in Utah , available to rent at your local LDS Family History Center , not vailable to lock at in Brandenburg and Berlin. On a LDS film I found a record for my husband's grandfather, grandmother and their parents from Behrendshagen. My husband and his family also did/do not have any birth certificates. The LDS films state the language that was used in the church records ,Kirchenbuch. Most are from shortly after Luther's time. Please take the time and look up the church records for places like : Bromberg , Posen , West Prussia : Thorn , Konitz , Culm , Dirschau , Elbing, Danzig East Prussia : Frauenburg , Braunsberg ,Heilsberg etc I do not use any 18th or 19th century histories . I am looking at an actual history record by the Holy Roman Empire from 1600 available on internet . Please contact me if you would like to look at it also. I also ask you to please read again the difference between Reichs-Deutsche and Volks- Deutsche . In you note above you still talk of Volksdeutsche only. You are completely overlooking the Reichs-Deutsche . (Taking your comment on Volkdeutsche I have to surmise that almost none of the US inhabitants are actual native , none of the Mexicans are actual native , other than the Indians and most of the English are actually none-native. So what kind of logic are you using ? I would like to know , where you did your studying , what country ? I came to live in California and with Genealogy Studies I am constantly asked any of these questions pertaining to history , why - how - when ,into every little detail. The older population , that is doing the genealogy research , knows absolutely zilch and never had any classes teaching them a n y of the European history , other than WW I or WW II connected so-called history (propaganda). I concern myself with the truth. H. Jonat Hi H. Jonat. I have looked at your homepage http://www.crystalbay.net/prussia-baltic/ (it is yours, right?) and the various entries you have added to Wikipedia. And I have no doubts that you are very concerned about stuff related to Prussia in the past. But like Michael Tinkler and J Hofmann Kemp I also find your entries rather biased. I know that Wikipedia is self-correcting in the sense that someone else can allways edit your stories. But it would be a great help if you tried to write the whole story from the beginning. --css MichaelTinkler offers: The study of 'History' is more complicated than family names in written records. I have a great deal of respect for the practice of genealogy (my mother is a serious amateur genealogist; she is not interested in working on any other families so she sees no need to become a certified professional genealogist), but genealogists must be (and generally are) aware that church records have a severe weakness - personal names are as readily changed as clothing. In the 19th and the first two thirds of the twentieth centuries archaeologists who excavated graves and grave goods made many assumptions about the ethnicity of those buried in the graves based on jewelry found with the bones. No one ever seems to have considered the (surprisingly simple) question of fashion - could it be possible that in the past people wore jewelry not related to their ethnicity, but that of a more powerful or a more novel ethnic group? The answer given by contemporary archaeologists and historians is "Yes. That happened." Archaeologists have reexamined many old recorded digs and discovered many graves with MIXED styles of jewelry. Just as people marry across ethnic lines, they wear jewelry without regard to later archaeologists. The study of ethnicity in the medieval and early modern period has been completely revolutionized in the last 25 years by this kind of thinking. Older published sources are not to be relied on for that. Family names are very unstable, too. If your parish priest is German, he may write down your name the way a German would spell it. He may translate your name into a German occupation-name. You, of course, may be ethnically something else and choose to speak German and raise your children speaking German. Linguistic identity and ethnic identity are very unstable. Old maps: old maps frequently represented the wishes of rulers rather than reality. Old maps cannot be used uncritically - who commissioned the map? Who made the drawings? Who published the map? Who REPUBLISHED the map, and was it still accurate, or was it just a lazy publisher? Aerial views of cities published in the Renaissance (Duerer, for instance) are almost entirely imaginary - remember, they could NOT work from an aerial photograph, but HAD to work from imagination. I put up a note about why one cannot trust Tacitus on the German information in general - he was not an anthropologist; he did not speak any Germanic language; he was using the Germans as a counter-example to what he saw as the decadence of the Romans. If you think of Rousseau's 'noble savage' you won't be far off of Tacitus's ideal German. A 17th century history of the Holy Roman Empire is interesting, but not useful for a 21st century encyclopedia. J. Hoffmann Kemp may be able to suggest a more contemporary German language source for you to work from. Just some pointers to why J. Hofmann Kemp and I are busy revising your entries - we are working from the paradigm of modern scholarship. --MichaelTinkler JHK response to H. Jonat (1) Thanks, all! My own answers below (not nearly as good as Michael Tinkler's) in Italics: HJ:You are the experts in style and computer writing and I gladly let you enrich the stories. I leave the cleaning up of the text also to you. JHK:I think that this is what we call in English a "cop-out." If you are going to contribute articles, then i think you are obliged to make them readable and useful. HJ:I am using 15th , 16th , 17th century maps to look at places and names . I am using Claudius Ptolemy : The Geography, Dover Publication original written ca 150 AD and Tacitus Agricola and Germania , written 98 AD, tranlation Mattingly . JHK: I have no objection to your sources, only the way in which you misuse them. If you are using maps from different eras, then you are obliged (if you believe in scholarly integrity) to explain that your evidence pertains to a different time period. The fact that, for example, Strasbourg/Strassburg? was a Frankish city that at times was included in the HRE in no way makes it German or its inhabitants Germans, although many were of German origin. In fact, there are many people living in Alsace-Lorraine (formerly Lotharingia) with German last names who consider themselves French. HJ:I am looking at www.familysearch.com (LDS) for places , actual films of actual church records . They are all original records, if duplicates, it state so. Please take the time and look up the church records for places like : Bromberg , Posen , West Prussia : Thorn , Konitz , Culm , Dirschau , Elbing, Danzig East Prussia : Frauenburg , Braunsberg ,Heilsberg etc I do not use any 18th or 19th century histories . JHK:I am not sure what you want me to look at. I don't see any actual records, only listings of what records are available and the different place-names for cross-reference for each town HJ:I am looking at an actual history record by the Holy Roman Empire from 1600 available on internet . Please contact me if you would like to look at it also JHK: I am sure many of us would like to see this. Could you please paste the url here? Again, I urge you to use your evidence in context. The HRE in the 16th c. was very different from that in the 12th. Also, if I remember correctly, the Emperors in the 16th century were not even necessarily German -- weren't Maximilian and Charles V both Burgundian and related closely to the rulers of Spain? Much of what you seem to believe about the HRE was its own propaganda. The HRE was not one coherent Empire, ruled by one person. There were imperial lands throughout the Empire, but the Emperor certainly did not have practical authority over the kings and princes who ruled within that Empire -- unless they chose to allow that authority. HJ: http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico.html HJ: I also ask you to please read again the difference between Reichs-Deutsche and Volks- Deutsche . In you note above you still talk of Volksdeutsche only. You are completely overlooking the Reichs-Deutsche . (Taking your comment on Volkdeutsche I have to surmise that almost none of the US inhabitants are actual native , none of the Mexicans are actual native , other than the Indians and most of the English are actually none-native. So what kind of logic are you using ? JHK: You surmise correctly. And there is much scholarly debate over whether even Native Americans are native -- or which groups are the most native. I think most scholars agree that the inhabitants of modern-day England are the result of centuries of interbreeding of each wave of invaders or migrants, so that genetically, the English are Celtic, Roman, and various types of German. I have read and understood the differences between Volksdeutsche and Reichs-Deutsche. I have addressed the issue of Volkdeutsche in greater depth because your adherence to the term is problematic in an historical sense. Even if you are not utilizing 18th and 19th century sources, you are making assumptions that are no longer considered valid by most of the scholarly community. German scholars have long been at the forefront of Place-name studies (Ortsnamenkunde), but recent scholarship has shown that too many assumptions have been made. For example, the article on the Bavarians assumes that the Bavarians are descendants of the Boii and/or the Baioariorum. Hoever, in the late 8th and early 9th centuries, we can clearly see that the Bavarian Agilolfing dukes belonged to a leading family with its roots in Alsace/Elsaess? -- which, according to your methodology, would make them Suebi! Moreover, the Agilolfinger were also tied closely by marriage and blood to the Pippinids, whom we also name the Carolingians, which would indicate that they were Franks. My point is and has been that none of the evidence provides clear answers, only more questions. HJ: I would like to know , where you did your studying , what country ? JHK: I have studied at two US universities, the Universitaet Augsburg, and done doctoral research at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek and the Archiv fuer Landesgeschichte in Hessen (Marburg). I agree that many Americans are ignorant of European history. I am not necessarily one of them. HJ: I came to live in California and with Genealogy Studies I am constantly asked any of these questions pertaining to history , why - how - when ,into every little detail. The older population , that is doing the genealogy research , knows absolutely zilch and never had any classes teaching them a n y of the European history , other than WW I or WW II connected so-called history (propaganda). JHK: What, in your opinion, is an example of this propaganda? Second Q&A seriesHJ (1): Last question - answer first - just go into a Barnes & Noble or any other bookstore and look at the history section. It is full of books flashing Hitler, Nazis, etc etc Go try to find some German History books which cover the last 2000 years , other than the Nazi time. This leaves me with the conclusion that Americans are totally obsessed with Hitlerism and bombing civilians , making wars. Americans love a good war. JHK(1): I'm not sure that's the right conclusion. I think (and this is my own opinion, based on experience and observation) that Americans tend to prefer modern history because it is more accessible to them. America is a young country, and we don't have the constant reminders of a more distant past that Europeans live with on a daily basis. At the same time, I think Hitler, the Nazis, and World War II are especially popular (although the VietNam? war runs a close second) because about 70% of Americans have at least one German ancestor. Germans are therefore "like us" in a way that, for example, non-Western Europeans aren't. It is very difficult for Americans to understand how Hitler could have been elected and then supported by the German people when his government supported the restriction of civil liberties Americans take for granted. JHK (1): As a Medievalist, I wish more of my compatriots were more interested, but they aren't. The fact that Americans like reading about Hitler is unpleasant, but not evidence of a plot. ========================== H. Jonat replies (2): On this point , read my website again, where I show Prussia history July 20, 1932 the Prussian government under Otto Braun was taken over by military coup in Berlin. After the Prussian government was ousted and the SPD ousted, Hitler took over. Now go back to the Daily Express March 1933 War Declaration , this was cause enough to have a Emergency situation . Millions of people were out of work and starving . Who do you think the American public would vote for if they would be in this situation. Read books on who financed Hitler , who put him in power . JHK(2): I think that much of this has been addressed. The so-called War declaration was an inflammatory newspaper article. Please re-read the other comments above, and also the very good article edited by Paul Drye on Prussia. It is much less biased, and a good example of how articles should be written. ========================== JHK (1): This is despite the fact that Americans allowed their government to abrogate the rights of Japanese citizens and confiscate their property. It's a dichotomy -- people are like that. Also, the Holocaust itself tends to draw interest. and I think guilt over staying uninvolved in the war for so long may also have something to do with the attraction of the subject. Finally, whether you like it or not, German was the primary villain in both world wars. Villains are interesting, as is the idea of good triumphing over evil. The fact that many innocents on all sides suffered does not change the simple fact that Hitler was one of the prime exemplars of evil in human history. I fail to see how the taste of the American reading public proves a propaganda campaign. ======================== HJ (2): Biggest propaganda machine is the Catholic church, they started this ministry. US government only functions in a war or preparation for war-like athmosphere. Us Government installations ( like Army Depot) used to call it work-creation. The only thing thas works even better is scandals. I guess we all saw that. JHK (2): Ok, now you're on a limb. Try some historical context, please. No one deny that the Catholic Church has always had some of the best propaganda and/or spin doctors, but in all human history at all times? Let's not forget Mr. Hitler's little machine, or the US propaganda campaigns against the Japanese. I'm not going here any more. ======================== HJ (1): Unfortunately Professors ,of whatever field , seem to be the only ones, who have any knowledge of history. The average person does not. Unfortunately it seem that so more knowledge the Professors aquire , so wordier explanations get , so less the average citizen can keep up. After all is, history only there for Professors or is it there for everyone ? JHK (1): History, like Art and Literature, is there for all. However, anyone who attempts to address historical topics and introduce them to others is obliged to apply basic methods of critical thinking to his or her work. Rules aren't only for the professionals. HJ (1):For a look at the Holy Roman Empire in 1600 http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico.html JHK (1)I will check out this source in depth. By the way, I'm not a professor, although I have spent some years teaching the History of Western Civilization. HJ (1): In the meanwhile I have a husband , whose bones cannot be laid to rest in his homeland the city of Elbing. I have the knowledge , that his grandfather Paul Haase , baptized in the Catholic St. Nicolai church in Elbing is still laying out in the field at the creek of their property in Behrendshagen near Elbing (today in Polish Jagodnik). He stayed behind when the Soviet Army went through. My mother-inlaw with her four children ages 9 years to 9 months were supposed to be transported on the Wilhelm Gustloff , but wound up on the whaleboat Walter Rau instead. I have the knowledge that Hannelore Poek (maiden name) , born near Elbing, remained in Behrendshagen (today Jagodnik). She asked me a year ago to find some, any personal records for her . All birth certificates etc were taken from all the refugees/ expellees and from the 1 1/2 million Authochtones who after 1945 managed to stay in their homeland , despite everything. If I seem a little oneside, then ask yourself , could that have anything to do with governments and the press (including Encyclopediaes) beeing totally othersided for 80 years ??? JHK (1):I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you have no business being one-sided IN THE CONTEXT OF ENCYCLOPEDIA CONTRIBUTIONS ONLY. If you read the suggested guidelines, you will see that articles should be written without bias. That's just good scholarship. That said, I think that you have an excellent point in that many innocent Germans suffered as a result of Versailles and Potsdam. I think your story could be a valuable contribution, if presented in the right place and way. If you look, I have redirected your article on Expellees (a term that makes no sense in English) to a page called "Diaspora Studies." There is now a section there, adopted from your writings, called "The plight of the Heimat-Vertriebene." I suggest that you open this page and, at the very bottom, create a link called "Personal Experiences of the Heimat-Vertriebene" or something like that. Firsthand accounts are important, especially when they are well-organized and well-written. As for your contributions on various places once held as part of the German Empire and the kingdoms that preceded it, I'm sorry, but you are on ground so shaky it could knock down skyscrapers. Just because some Germanic tribe or other are the first recorded inhabitants of a particular place, and then that place shows up as part of a petty principality under the HRE, does not now, nor will it ever, prove that it "belongs" to the Germans. That's what you seem to be saying. HJ (1): To the matter of the imperial record of 1600 let me give you the website to look at. You can also order a copy, I believe Please look at the emperors, kings, princes etc of the empire That will take time , but it will answer your text above . It will also show you that the government of Europe was united and totally different or whatever you may want to call it , using the 20st and 21st century difference of approach of nationalism . JHK (1): Sorry, but I don't really see how you got this impression. This is an incredible find, and the website is great, but I don't think it supports your point. The document in question is a collection of portraits of the famous and powerful. The scholarly introduction itself points out that the collection was a bit atypical, because it shows not only German rulers, but also the King of France, Queen of England, and several Turkish rulers. Books like this tended to be produced in return for (or in hopes of) future patronage from the dedicatee. They imply that the intended patron deserves to be among that august company. I saw nothing to indicate a unified Europe. In fact, since the 15th and 16th centuries were plagued by wars of conquest, territorial rights, and religion, I can't for the life of me understand your point. I will grant that the document provides some history along with the pictures -- HOWEVER, it is history written from a 16th century viewpoint. There was no critical method for writing history at the time. History was meant to teach a lesson or prove a point and was deliberately biased. Modern historiography rejects this approach. HJ (2): It is/was the idea of a universal empire , just as it is the idea of a free United States of America , that all people in Europe and now in the world dream of . Dreams have nothing to do with reality, but as in the case of the Catholic church , believing in wonders is essential. For the Holy Roman Empire and the connected lands and ruler To the point I read somewhere here, the emperor did have precedence over all Christian kings. Of course the battle was always on to have as much as possible independence from the empire , as the sample of Mieszko I , Boleslaw I Chrobry etc show. They pledged allegiance to the emperor and received LANDinLIEN? . Then they tried to keep it. All land was Lien . Take altavista or webtop and find the website in England, which states this. Or else I will try to find the page, where I printed this. And a hundred years from now people will reject todays views just as much JHK (2): The simple fact is that theory and practice in the case of the Holy Roman Empire were never one. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you don't really know what you are talking about. The Holy Roman Emire changed vastly in character and power over the approximately 700 years of its existence. You seem to think it was like the Roman Empire -- it wasn't. The Holy Roman Emperor was ELECTED, which clearly limits his power to some extent.JHK (1): It's the same argument used by various peoples in the Balkans to excuse their atrocious behavior towards their fellow men, and it is just not true. HJ (2): Read my statement and the part about the none-violence statement of the Vertriebenen. I have however read statements by Serbs, that said, what is the matter with the US. They let the Russians and Poles take the Germans land, and now the US complains when Serbia does it? JHK (2): That's just being argumentative and inflammatory. The situations are hardly the same and there is never an excuse for genocide. You should be ashamed of yourself. ======================= HJ (2):In California the minority is already the majority. It is only a matter of time ,when this state is again overtaken by desert. JHK (2): is your point that the Mexican-American population is now a majority? So what? I'm a native Californian, and learned in the 4th grade that California belonged to Native Americans, then the Spanish, then Mexico before it was subsumed into the US. I grew up speaking Spanish with the kids down the street. For most of the Anglos I know, Southern California has always been a bilingual community. The only thing that will turn California back into the desert it is, is the fact that way too many people live there and are raping the environment to force a desert to be farmland. I appreciate all your comments. Thank you every one !!! H. Jonat This is getting confusing, but I have added notes again too. Do you want to email me, after you have looked over the portraits of the empire ? Its on my website above.I have a lot of material collected. H.Jonat J Hofmann Kemp replies: I've tried to reorgainize this with my added comments. I have looked the portaits over, and the document doesn't prove your point. Obviously, you haven't bothered to read my answers. Over to Larry. I have quickly read this over. I don't understand what the dispute is about and I'm not sure what issues it turns on. So, I'm afraid I can't help with this one. "Wilhelm Gustloff" is the name of a person, not a boat. Names of boats usually have things like "HMS" and "USS" to indicate they're names of boats. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. If you can explain it briefly and simply, I can offer a nonspecialist's opinion, if you might find that helpful (!). --LMS This has now been edited from an NPOV. It should be moved to a page where it is apparent that this is a boat, not the leader of the [Swiss Nazi Party]? of the same name. sjc |
|
Removed revisionist history discussion to Kdf Ship Wilhelm Gustloff/Talk. |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)