Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas/Archive 2

Please stop idle chats
All previous talk has been archived. Article talk pages are intended for discussing article's content. If you want to add, delete or change something in the article, please write here. Otherwise please go somewhere elese. Internet has plenty of discussion forums, and wikipedia is not one of them.

Once again, this page is not for discussion of wikpedia editors or de Zayas or Nazi regime or famine in Uganda or partitions of Poland. This page is for discussion of the content of the article about de Zayas using verifiable information from reliable sources. `'mikka 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

After 3 weeks of discussions in the talk page and the creation of separate pages on the author's books, maybe the neutratily test has been sufficiently satisfied. JvA

I wish to refer Polish readers to the thoughtful chapter by Alfred de Zayas on the UN Human Rights Committee, published together with Professor Roman Wieruszewski in the handbook "Ochrona Praw Czelowicka w Swiecie", published by Ofiecyna Wydawnicza Branta, Poznan, 2000 published 2000 by Oficyna Wydawnicza in Poznan,ISBN 83-86605-60-X. Prof. de Zayas personally gave this book to Lech Walesa at an international conference held in Yerevan, Armenia in April 2005. JvA

Academic opinions
favourable:

"His is a lucid, scholarly and compassionate study. Most pertinently he insists that we deny what the lesser histories conspire with us to invent--that there are stopping places in history." Tony Howarth, Times Educational Supplement

"The lesson from this well-organized and moving historical record is not merely that retribution which penalizes innocent human beings becomes injustice, but that acceptance of political realities may be a better road to human fulfilment than the path of violence. Alfred de Zayas has written a persuasive commentary on the suffering which becomes inevitable when humanitarianism is subordinated to nationalism" Benjamin Ferencz, American Journal of International Law

"Books such as this ... deserve a respectful welcome. There can be no dispute that the eviction and resettlement of some 16 million people which occurred in Eastern Europe at the end of the war caused enormous suffering. It is important that authors such as Mr. de Zayas should form time to time remind us of man's inhumanity to man." Michael Balfour in International Affairs

"L'ouvrage est édifiant et sera pour beaucoup une révélation. M. de Zayas n'est pas tendre pour les Alliés, qui ont fermé les yeux sur l'une des entreprises les plus inhumaines de l'histoire de la civilisation occidentale, la responsabilité des démocraties anglo-saxonnes étant a cet egard primordiale." Revue Générale de Droit International Public

In minuziöser Quellenarbeit zeigt de Zayas, dass in Polen und der Tschechoslowakei schon lange vor dem Krieg die Absicht gehegt wurde, die dort wohnhaften Deutschen aus ihrer rund 700-jährigen Heimat zu vertreiben. Beide Staaten missachteten ihre völkerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen zum Schutz von Minderheiten ... De Zayas erkennt darin einem Präzedenzfall fuer spätere Vertreibungen in Palästina, Zypern, Bosnien oder Kosovo. Sein engagiertes Wirken gegen solche 'Kriegsstrategien' hat bedeutdenden Anteil daran, dass sich das Recht auf die Heimat in den letzten Jahren als fundamentales Menschenrecht etablieren konnte. Patrick Sutter in der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung, 2006.

"De Zayas is undoubtedly one of the world's leading legal scholars addressing forced population transfers ... [his] work provides massive confirmation of the truism that atrocities are committed in war by all sides, that many go unpunished, and some are part of national policy....the possibility that truth might be misused in argument by the devil is not a reason to suppress truth. I have no personal doubt that this book is a useful attempt to preserve an important truth. By writing it, the author -- whose own humanitarian sympathies are beyond question, as is Levie's scholarly detachment --has done a service to scholarship." Alfred Rubin in The Fletcher Forum

"Every victim of inhumanity, regardless of nationality, race or creed, should be inteitled to the equal protection of the law. The stated primary purpose of this interesing and well-written work is to hlep minimize the vicolations of international law in any future armed conflicts. if that goal is to be achieved, it is not enough merely to know that the rules are often broken by all sides. Americans learned that leasson at My Lai. There must be continuous improvement in the codes in order to meet the changing modes of warfare. There must be inculcation and acceptance of humanitarian values, even in time of war. Most important, there must be a more certain, objective, and effective judicial machinery, national and international, to improve the enforcement of international law and the rules of war. The de Zayas book sheds light on a problem that has not yet been resolved." Benjamin B. Ferencz, American Journal of International Law.

"The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1495 is a fascinating book. It is well-organized and elegantly written ... a sobering new look at the Second World War and ourselves .. With the appearance of this new book ... our innocence comes to an official end." Arnold Krammer, Journal of Soviet Military Studies

"The facts were painstakingly resarched by the author. Archives were consulted and cross-checked and survivors interviewed. It is an academic job well done, and a must for students of small islands of sanity in the ocean of madness called war" Lt.-Gen. G.C. Berkhof, Netherlands International Law Review

"This well-written book, which is based on thorough research of original sources... triggered a broad discussion... It is timely and necessary to discuss the legal, sociological and psychological problems involved in the investigation of war crimes during and after armed conflicts." Dieter Fleck, in Archiv des Völkerrechts

"a well-founded book" Professor Norman Stone in the Sunday Times, London

"an excellent book" Professor Christopher Greenwood in The Cambridge Law Journal

"an important book" Professor L.F.E. Goldie in the American Journal of International Law

"Dr. de Zayas first came upon the previously undiscovered 226 volumes of WUSt documents as a Fulbright fellow on leave from his studies in International Law at Harvard. After concluding his legal studies, de Zayas subsequently earned a Ph.D. in hisotry and the University of Göttingen, where he later became an associate. The Institute supported the research on which this study is based and arranged for the assistance of a Dutch international law specialist, Dr. Walter Rabus ... Mindful that the WUSt might have been manipulated by Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry, the authors were punctilious in their verification. They carefully examined the documents for internal consistency and continuity and then verified the reports and testimony, where possible, with judges, medical examiners and witnesses still alive. In addition, they compared WUSt documents with those of other German agencies in seven additional German archives, and with documents in British,.Dutch, Swiss, and American archives. In this exhaustive analysis, it becomes clear that the WUSt operated with scrupulous objectivity and therefore that its documents constitute a valuable new source for the study of the conduct of war. This carefully documented administrative history together with its excellent bibliography will therefore become an important introduction to this extensive archive. The Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle is at once an interesting history of an internal agency of the Third Reich and an important archival and historiographical contribution to the study of the war." German Studies Review, 1980, pp. 150-151. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0149-7952(198102)4%3A1%3C150%3ADWUAUA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.199.54 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Profusely illustrated with photographs, documents and excellent maps, this book analyzes the origin and the effects of article XIII of the Potsdam Protocol which provided that ethnic Germans living in the eastern countries would be transferred to the truncated remains of the Reich 'in an orderly and humane manner'. As the 16 million Germans were driven westward, some two million died, but the world remained silent. Outraged by the crimes Nazis had perpetrated ...the whole world, with a few exceptions, like Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweizer, remained mum.... de Zayas is perhaps best when delineating the legal aspects of the Potsdam action, although his historical facts are equally impeccable....Due to the willingness of the press and the scholarly comunity in the West to ignore these facts of the Potsdam accord, few Americans or Britons know there ever was an expulsion, let alone authorization of the compulsory transfer. Questioning rhetorically whether the wrong could ever be righted, de Zayas maintains that the West could affirm its regard for individual guilt or innocence and reject the concept of collective guilt." Professor LaVern Rippley, St. Olaf College, Die Unterrichtspraxis, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1978, pp. 132-133. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.199.54 (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Fast ein Klassiker" Dr. habil. Matthias Stickler in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2006

"The central thesis of this unique and timely book is that the right to one's homeland belongs to the most fundamental human rights, since its observance by state and non-state actors is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of most other human rights. Indeed, human rights are not exercised in a vacuum, but in a concrete geographical and temporal context, which is most frequently the place where one was born, where one's historical and cultural links lie. The denial of the right to live in one's homneland by mass expulsion or ethnic cleansing entails not only the obvious violation of the right to self-determination, which is considered by many international legal experts as jus cogens, but a breach of most civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights." Netherlands International Law Review

Excerpts of review of: Rainer Maria Rilke: "Larenopfer" (bilingual commented edition, translated by A. de Zayas)

"Ebenfalls ganz neu und frisch ist die erste Übersetzung von Rilkes zum Jahresende 1895 erschienenem Gedichtband Larenopfer ins Englische. Die Übersetzung stammt von Alfred de Zayas (einem Mitglied der Rilke-Gesellschaft wie Frau Ada Brodsky), und sie liegt vor als eine »Bilingual Edition«. Selbst für deutschsprachige Leser ist ein solches Unternehmen eine große Hilfe. Das Nebeneinander der Texte, des Originals und seiner Übersetzung, bringt einen Dialog in Gang, der sehr zum Gewinn auch für den muttersprachlichen Lesers werden kann. Gelegentlich entdeckt man erst im Vergleich die besondere, von der Regel abweichende Wortwahl, die syntaktischen Figuren, die Ausklammerungen, und auch dies: die spezielle Bildlichkeit, die sich im anderen Medium nicht wiederholen läßt. Die im Namen der Brunnenromantik (»holde Brunnenpoesie«) formulierte Kritik an der modernen Wasserversorgung im Gedicht Brunnen (S. 46) macht besonders die Übertragung ins Englische deutlich. Und schon der bestimmte Artikel in der Übersetzung des Titels (Brunnen -- The Fountain) macht auf die Besonderheit aufmerksam, verweist auf die Identität in der Differenz. Was Alfred de Zayas mit seiner Übersetzung erreicht, eine erneute und intensive Beschäftigung mit dem Rilkeschen Text, das erreicht auf einem ganz anderen Weg der Altmeister der Rilke-Philologie..." Professor August Stahl in the Blätter der Rilke Gesellschaft, 2005, page 275

critical: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1720863819285 Xx236 14:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These are opinions about the books, not about the author. `'mikka 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This from Xx236 named link is in German but to comment it it is done a Barns and Noble Book revision of De Zayas work called by a Habsburg net.

Comment to the Link:

Well written but not just. One problem with the link is that it says about De Zaysa that he is looking to much in the outcome of the Versailles Treaty. But that is the turning point for all German Minorities. The Author "Habsburg" is writing like the German minorities have been living since hundreds and hundreds of years in a Polish and Czechoslovakian state. Not one word he writes about the not just actions from polish state and the czech state against the Germans between the wars. You can make an own page about this Legal and phyical attacs against the minorities. He writes like the National Sozialists alone would have radicalist the German minorities and not the fact that they where suppressed. Several Hundred thousand Germans left Poland before 1939 and not of economical reasons. This he does not tell. Like a lot of the historians of our days, history is written one-sided talled and a lot of things are just not said, with gives the impression that it is a real critic and not a political statement, witch anyway is clear, when you call a history forum. Habsburg NET.

Johann

Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau
I created the The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945. Please provide necessary references that discuss the book, per wikipedia's WP:CITE policy. `'mikka 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Academic criticism
Alfred de Zayas deserves praise for not having adopted the politically correct attitute of most post-World War II historians who turned a blind eye to the sufferings of the losers of World War II. Rightfully, he points to the Nazi-like barbarism to which Germans were exposed by the victors. In his writings he condemns crimes against humanity no matter who committed what to whom. Thus he points to a path of reconciliation that, regrettably, is still waiting to be followed more than 60 years after the disaster. I admire de Zayas for his knowledge and wisdom, and I salute him for his courage to disseminate a politically incorrect truth. Rudolf Pueschel.

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04262006-071805/unrestricted/larson_kevin_m_200605_ma.pdf GERMANS AS VICTIMS? THE DISCOURSE ON THE VERTRIEBENE DIASPORA

Of particular interest in respect to de Zayas’s book is that it was originally published in German in 1986—two years before Maier’s work detailing the Historikerstreit was published—under the title Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten. Whereas Maier was reacting to the reemergence of a conservative Germany that was seeking to make less of the Holocaust while raising support for its own victims, de Zayas saw an opportunity to profit from the political situation and published a book with an agenda that closely matched the CDU’s agenda.''' While the book did address Germans as victims and was among the first to do so, it did not approach the topic from a constructive tangent. Rather, it sought to assign blame heavy-handedly toward the Russians and others who “persecuted” Germans during World War II. This argument’s appearance in print suggests that a change in the political leadership of a nation can influence scholarly discourse. It is also interesting to note that the original German title translates to “Commentary about the Expulsion of Germans Out of the East.” Over time, as the Streit over culpability for all versus innocence for some began to sway toward innocence, de Zayas capitalized on the shift in the historiography.''' He published the book in the United States in 1993 under the title The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace. The 1994 paperback edition trumpets the title A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950. Instances like these make it difficult for some Germans to lay legitimate claims to being victims. The words “ethnic cleansing” applied to the German Vertriebene ring hollow and lead to unfair and unsettling comparisons to the Holocaust. At no time does the fate of twelve million people who were forced to relocate equal the deaths of six million people at the hands of a ruthless government. This kind of historic discourse draws readers to make comparisons between two linked events that should not be compared. Furthermore, in his discussion of Operation Barbarossa, De Zayas only briefly mentions that “special squads of German Security Service (SS) troops murdered hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens, primarily Jews.” When he addresses the Russian response to German atrocities, De Zayas writes of the “hate-mongering pamphlets and fliers” that were distributed to Russians, calling upon them to kill as many Germans as possible. De Zayas even quotes from one of the pamphlets, highlighting the Russian prose that calls upon Russians to create a “heap of German corpses.” This type of comparison that De Zayas uses is heavy-handed and unfair. What De Zayas is doing is vilifying the Soviets by quoting from one of their pamphlets, showing that they had documents that called for the deaths of Germans. It is as though De Zayas is desperately pointing to a well-organized effort to kill Germans and thus hoping to make German victimhood more attainable. De Zayas does a disservice to Germans and the legitimacy of German victimhood with his analysis. By not quoting from a German document that called for the deaths of the Russians—Operation Barbarossa was well organized and these documents do exist—De Zayas makes his bias painfully obvious. He tries too blatantly to pin atrocities on the Russians and hide the crimes of the Germans behind a single sentence. This is irresponsible use of source material and makes it more difficult for Germans who are victims to lay claim to that status. De Zayas analysis is one-sided and does not promote a victimhood claim that embraces all who were affected by the war. Instead, it creates controversy in a historiography that is already controversial enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aurelism (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Dear Mr Aurelia !

VICTIMS ARE VICTIMS. THERE IS NO DEFFINITION IF THEY ARE GOOD OR BAD VICTIMS. GENERALY OLD MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDRENS ARE SEEN AS VICTIMS EVEN by THE WORST ENEMY.

=
~ Unfortunately the majority of Germans ignored this truth before the expulsion. So the lesson did work? Are you aware what Germans did in Poland? Probably not.Xx236 12:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Xx236 -- de Zayas did write about Nazi crimes in Poland in "Nemesis at Potsdam", in "A Terrible Revenge" and in "Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau". that's why the books are called "Nemesis" (goddess of revenge) and a Terrible Revenge -- meaning, the Nazis had started it. But the whole point is that one crime does not justify another. You should try to hate the Germans a bit less and try to put yourself in the concrete situation of the common folk in the 1930s -- in Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland --

People who kill old men, children and women too, are seen as barbaric. I think that needs no further comment, you should think about your ideas. On a moral point of view, your comment is inhuman, and shows only too well, why we have the problems that we have in our world now.

Johann

=
Johann, this is a Wikipedia. People cooperate here writing articles. It's not your personal forum.Xx236 12:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Aurelism" writes that the "relocation" of 12 million people does not equate with 6 million people murdered, and of course it does not, and nor does Prof de Zayas claim it does. However, these "relocations" were carried out as brutally as possible; in the words of one eye-witness, "not just with an absence of kindness, but with the maximum brutality. 2 million of the 12 million were MURDERED during the expulsions, so it hardly deserves the name "relocation" as if they were simply moving house. The Potsdam Declaration authorised the expulsions and stipulated they must be conducted in "a manner as orderly and humane as possible." This was nonsense; there was never any likelihood of it happening in that way, and the drafters of the Declaration knew it. However we try to dress them up or justify them, the expulsions were a crime on a massive scale. If they'd been carried out by Nazi leaders, they would have earned a well-deserved seat in the dock at Nuremberg. Proud Angle.

Hey, we are not talking about transferring a hundred people by bus from Breslau to Berlin. We are talking about brutally expelling 15 million people from areas of Eastern Europe settled by Germans 700 years ago, and killing two million human beings in the process. This is much worse than the 'ethnic cleansing' we saw in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's. De Zayas has done a monumental piece of original research in the archives, coupled with interviews of American, British, French, German diplomats and politicians, and interviews with the victims. If the books were not very solid, US Ambassadord Robert Murhpy, a participant at the Potsdam Conference, would not have delivered a foreword for the de Zayas book.

Johann

=
================== Johann, respect the rules, don't shout on the readers. I have much more reasons to shout on you.Xx236 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Revenons à nos moutons! Let's discuss here the biographical aspects -- and relegate discussion of the books "Nemesis at Potsdam" "Terrible Revenge" and "Wehrmacht" to their respective wiki articles. Questions to be asked here could be what impact has de Zayas had on the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee, Committee against Torture, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination -- much of which he shaped for 22 years at the UN. What impact have his frequently quoted articles on minority rights, ethnic cleansing, peacekeeping had? In the long run his human rights work may be more sigificant than what he has done as an historian of Germany. True, he opened the debate on the issue of Germans as victims -- not just as perpetrators of crimes -- but this may be of transitory importance. However, in his inter-disciplinary approach to German history, he evaluates the legal issues on the basis of solid historical knowledge and proper methodology, as he examines the relevant historical events with the eye of the experienced human rights lawyer. In a way he represents the symbiosis of the Harvard lawyer and the methodical Ranke historian. Perhaps more interesting than his German publications is his work on Guantanamo. He not only condemns the torture and indefinite detention there -- others do that too -- but he convincingly shows that the US is illegally occupying Cuban sovereign territory, that Guantanamo Bay was militarily occupied by the US in 1898, that the "lease" agreement of 1903 was imposed by force, that the U.S. has materially breached the agreement, that Cuba has officially terminated the lease in 1959, but that the U.S. has refused to leave. Even more interesting and creative is his work of literary criticism in P.E.N. congresses. No one before de Zayas dared to see the cosmopolitan Rilke also from the perspective of homeland poetry -- not universal, but locally focused. Jeff

With all due respect - quite many of the 12 million were evacuted by German authorities and expelled by not allowning to return or keeping them in US or Soviet camps. Learn before you teach.

With all due respect, the 2 million of dead victims is pure propaganda, which doesn't deserve any comment. Xx236 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Xx236 Yes they where evacuated, but they could not go back and actually some thousand ( the number is not known) shortly after the war, where going back to Poland and where expelled immediately by the Polish authorities. With your logic the communist Dissidents, during the cold war, witch where not allowed to go back home where not expelled from the East they just where evacuated by western authorities. Johann

Dear Xx236 - you are beginning to sound a bit like the revisionist historians who deny the Holocaust or deny the Armenian genocide, or those who claim that it was not 6 million but "only" 3 million murdered Jews, or those who claim that it was not 1.5 million murdered Armenians but only 700.000. There really is no difference from the moral standpoint -- not even from the legal standpoint, since genocide and crimes against humanity are the worst crimes imaginable, and anyone complicit in them out to be brought before an international criminal tribunal. Now, as far as the statistics on the German expulsions, the most reliable (and conservative) statistics are those published by the Statistisches Bundesamt in Wiesbaden. These are the figures used by de Zayas. There are higher estimates by the Bundesministerium für Vertriebene and by German authors like Dr. Heinz Nawratil and Dr. Gerhard Reichling. In any event, there used to be some 17.5 million Germans in the Eastern Provinces and in countries of Eastern Europe before WWII, of whom one million died in the war, two million stayed behind (in Poland, Russia, Romania, Hungary etc.), 12 million made it alive to what was left of Germany and Austria after WWII and two million died in the course of the evacuation, the flight, the wild expulsions and the "transfer" at the end of WWII. It was by far the largest "ethnic cleansing" of the twentieth century. You may wish to read Victor Gollancz "Our Threatened Values", or his "In Darkest Germany", or Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "Prussian Nights". Jeff.

I'm for describing facts in this Wikipedia, about any crimes - German, Soviet, Polish. If facts are revisionistic, I'm proud to be revisionistic. Unfortuantely many historians prefer to rewrite fantastic numbers of victims rather than do research.

The expulsion of Germans was decided outside Poland. Poles were victims of the WWII and post-war expulsions more than Germans, so don't tell me about moralty. Prisoners of Auschwitz or Gulag don't have any moralty when liberated. Germans enslaved millions of Poles, killed clergy and other leaders. It's nasty when someone (Germans) produces a mob and later claims to be victim of the mob. Communist Poland, as bad as it was, didn't exterminate German leaders.

You know hat you can do with your Nawratil? Get some reading, before you start to teach. Xx236 08:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The book "Die Nemesis von Potsdam" has 47 pages of bibliography -- archives, demographic studies, official publications of the U.S., Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Poland, etc. besides secondary literature. These sources are tken into account in some 1000 footnotes in the book, and brought up to date in the 14th revised and enlarged edition, which you can borrow from any library. As far as German statistics on the deaths that resulted from the evacuation/flight/expulsion of the Germans, the figure of 2 million deaths is considered to be on the low side of the spectrum. As you may know, the German Red Cross, "Statistisches Bundesamt", "Heimatortskarteien", "Gesamterhebung" and other professional, not amateur institutions carried out careful demographic studies, especially in connection with the search for missing persons. This work was carried out over many years, and the results were always the same -- between 2 and 3 million missing and dead. The fact that Poland was a victim of aggression and war crimes by both Germany and the Soviet Union does not justify or legalize the crimes committed against East Prussian farmers, Silesian coal miners, factory workers --and their families. JvA

LIVE INTERVIEW OF ALFRED DE ZAYAS ON CNN WORLD NEWS BY LOU WATERS ON 16 APRIL 1990 AT 17:15 (recorded at New York CNN Studios)

WATERS: "On 13 April 1990 Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbatchov formally apologized to the Polish nation, admitting Soviet responsibility for the NKVD massacre of Polish POWs at Katyn, near Smolensk, in 1940. Dr. Alfred de Zayas, an American historian, points out that Katyn represents only the tip of the iceberg, that the bulk of Soviet crimes are yet to be investigated -- the killings and deportations of the Baltic and Polish intelligentsia, the GULAGs the eenforced starvation, the Stalinist purges..."

After discussing Katyn, Waters asks de Zayas about his new book on the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau and its methodology. The book appears on the screen.

Waters: "Should the Soviet admission that it was Stalin's secret police, the NKVD, that murdered 15,000 Polish prisoners of war at Katyn and elsewhere in the Sviet Union now be followed by further admissions and investigations concerning other massacres of the Stalinist period?"

Zayas: "The Soviet Union is full of mass graves wehre the NkVD disposed of millions of Soviet citizens -- Ukrainians, Belorussians, Tatars, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Poles -- perceived to be political or religious opponents of the regime. During the Second World War the invading German Army discovered many mass graves, but no one believe them. Shortly before retreating from the Katyn area, the Germans also discovered pits containing an estimated 50,000 civilians, indicating that the Katyn forest had been a frequently used execution ground for the NKVD. At Vinnitsa the bodies of 10,000 civilians killed in 1938 had been found, at Lviv the victims of Stalin's terror were estimated at 12,000. Other massacres occurred at Dubno, Luck, Sarni, Brzerznaz, Tarnopol, Dorpat, etc."

Waters: de Zayas backs up his charges with abundant documentation and interview testimony in his new book, the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, published by the University of Nebraska Press in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Zayas: "The book is the result of the evaluation of 226 volumes of previously classified records of the Legal Division of the Wehrmacht, and further research into related military and diplomatic records in German, British, American and Swiss archives."

Book appears again on the screen

It was interesting to follow the discussion concerning Alfred-Maurice de Zayas and his books. It seems that some of the negative comments made about de Zayas are coming from participants of the discussion who have not yet read his books and are essentially reacting against his choice of topics. I have read his books and consider them impecable in methodology and balanced in judgment. As a Harvard lawyer with a German doctorate in history, de Zayas combines the best of both disciplines and takes the reader step by step through the facts and their logical conclusions. He provides the reader with hundreds of footnotes in which he meticulously documents the narrative and comments on the relevant literature from all sources, British, American, French, Swiss, German, Polish, Russian, etc.

I suggest that the critics are missing the point -- namely that history is a continuum that must be seen in context. It is not black and white, nor did it start in 1933 or in 1939. Similarly, international law must be applied equally to all nations and peoples. If ethnic cleansing was illegal in the former Yugoslavia, it was also illegal when 15 million Germans were thrown out of their 700-year old homelands. There can be no discrimination among victims of gross violations of human rights.

Critics are entitled to disagree with the author, but they should articulate where, in their opinion, de Zayas has made a methodological error, or where an important historical fact or legal norm has been neglected.

Dr. de Zayas is not pushing a certain version of history, but is publishing the results of extensive research in many international archives and thousands of interviews with politicians, diplomats, witnesses and victims. Dr. de Zayas is a defender of human rights and freedom of speech worldwide. His credentials are impressive including being a senior lawyer with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary of the Human Rights Committee and the Chief of Petitions, President of the Swiss P.E.N., and member of Amnesty International..

I believe that to make a contribution to a better world, we should all be prepared to dialogue and strive for harmony and understanding and above all for the truth.

E. Friedel

Guiness book of records mentality
History is presented here as a kind of Olympic games. Germany wasn't the best in the number of dead victims, the ratio of victims, the subject to the biggest extermination, the biggest expulsion. So some Germans invented a new category the biggest ethnic expulsion in Europe in the 20 century. There is even the category - the biggest expulsion after the expulsion of Jews in Romania. If we forget a dozen European nations the Germans were the main victims of WWII they started. What do you expect? A special prize for the best propaganda?Xx236 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Xx236 I think it is revenge that you want not answers

This is not about who started the war is about moral values, if they are relevant for all nations and peoples ore only for the one who lost a war. If the western nations and Russia just would have divided Germany and went on in history, nobody would ask anymore about the victims of this war, not about theirs ore ours. But there where the Nurnberg trials witch gave a necessary new standard of human values in wartimes, and they out spoke this standard for every nation and for every man, witch is right. But if these standards are existing one must look on history with these new standards. Only professional scientists like Mr de Zayas can do this for us and we must respect their findings, because they study years and we, we have just a little knowledge about the things.

Johann

Dear Xx236,

This has nothing to do with Guinnness Book of Records style accounting or head-line grabbing. The Holocaust happened; the expulsions happened. Nothing anyone can do now can alter that. Both were crimes against humanity on a massive scale. One has had massive publicity for over 62 years, with constant reminders in books, newspapers, TV shows, feature films, and documentaries. The other has been ignored completely by mainstream historians. Dr de Zayas has opened the eyes of the world to what happened in 1944-46 in eastern Germany. It's a disgrace that other historians continue to ignore it. Poland suffered too, with many people ethnically cleansed or "internally exiled" by the Soviets. You sound like a Pole with a chip on his shoulders about Germans. I can sympathise with you about that, but don't you think Poland has suffered as much from the Soviet Union as from Nazi Germany? Poland NEVER got back the land seized by Stalin in 1939, when he was Hitler's willing partner in invading Poland.

The League of Expellees in Germany issued a formal charter in the 1950's, acknowledging their loss of a homeland in what was Prussia, but expressing a wish that it might be returned to them one day. They also solemnly pledged never to use force to regain it, a remarkable pledge to make at that or any other time. It's a pity that the rest of the world has never followed their example. It's also a pity that the world has covered-up the violence inherent in the expulsions. If the ethnic cleansing of Prussia in 1944-45 had been studied PROPERLY, as Dr de Zayas has done, the world might have been able to prevent similar tragedies (albeit on a smaller scale) in India, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Rwanda, Nigeria/Biafra, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Congo and South-East Asia. Preventing knowledge of the German tragedy leaking out has cost the lives of millions of non-Germans.

Proud Anglo.

de zayas is not only concerned with German issues. He is a human rights activist. See his interview in Die Welt of 9 October on Myanmar and the weak resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. Birma: Die Härte der Militärs - und die Milde der Vereinten Nationen Berlin/Genf - Die Militärjunta Birmas plant offenkundig keine baldige Freilassung von Oppositionsführerin Aung San Suu Kyi. Erst wenn eine neue Verfassung verabschiedet sei, käme eine Erfüllung entsprechender Forderungen in greifbare Nähe, schrieb gestern die Zeitung "The New Light of Myanmar", ein bekanntes Sprachrohr der Generäle. Damit dürfte sich der Hausarrest der 62-jährigen Friedensnobelpreisträgerin fortsetzen. Die Bundesregierung in Berlin forderte das Regime auf, Suu Kyi sowie die nach den jüngsten Protesten inhaftierten Menschen freizulassen.Einen derartigen Appell hatte auch der Menschenrechtsrat der Vereinten Nationen in Genf verabschiedet. Aber das Gremium fasste dabei das Regime "gewissermaßen mit Samtpfötchen" an, kritisiert der renommierte Völkerrechtler und UN-Experte Alfred M. de Zayas im Gespräch mit der WELT. Hintergrund: Eine von europäischen Staaten eingebrachte Resolution war vorigen Dienstag deutlich verwässert worden.Gleich die ersten beiden Worte der Erklärung wurden verändert. "Entschieden verurteilt" ("strongly condems") das Gremium im Entwurf die "fortgesetzte gewaltsame Unterdrückung friedlicher Demonstrationen in Myanmar". In der verabschiedeten Form heißt es deutlich milder, das Gremium "missbilligt entschieden" ("strongly deplores") diese Vorgänge.Im zweiten Punkte der Resolution wird die Militärführung gedrängt, die Menschenrechte anzuerkennen. Doch die Forderung des Entwurfs, die Straflosigkeit bei Verstößen dagegen zu beenden ("to end impunity"), wurde gestrichen.Der im Juni 2006 eingerichtete Rat agiert immer wieder parteiisch. In jeder Sitzung wird Israel kritisiert, während etwa eine Resolution zu Darfur erst nach langem Ringen zustande kam. Islamische Staaten überstimmen gemeinsam mit Regimen wie China oder Russland die acht EU-Staaten - darunter Deutschland - plus Kanada und Schweiz nach Belieben.Im Falle Birmas waren es vor allem Russland und China, die auf die Verwässerung drängten. Günter Nooke, Menschenrechtsbeauftragter der Bundesregierung, sagte der WELT, er hätte sich "eine klarere Formulierung gewünscht". Doch auch im UN-Sicherheitsrat, der gestern eine Verurteilung Birmas beriet, wurden Abschwächungen des Textes unter anderem aus Peking und Moskau erwartet. katja 90.230.244.217 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I would like to inform you that actually we have a hot dispute about Alfred de Zayas on German Wikipedia. It seems that there were some manipulations from IPs from Switzerland with the intention not to allow any criticism about de Zayas, whose reception is controversial in science. Sentences like this in the actual article here: "Notwithstanding criticism from a few left-wing historians in Germany, the books were well received in the academic community and remain in print thirty years after their initial publication, in the 14th and 7th revised editions, respectively", are not neutral and give a distorted image of his role (POV inserted icluded by IP from Geneva ). Kind rgards--KarlV 07:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

KarlV (probably the pseudonym for some extremists) has been pestering the German Wikipedia readers with some 30 comments attacking de Zayas. He has been contradicted by a considerable number of German Wikipedia readers, but he keeps insulting de Zayas. It appears to be a mental case. As far as "neutrality", KarlV is the last person in the world to claim neutrality. Nothing can change the fact that the books of de zayas have received cumulatively hundreds of positive reviews, and that the books have reached as many as 14 editions, and are all in print, many years after the initial editions were published. There are hundreds of positive reviews of the books of Alfred de Zayas. 91.16.108.47 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)MP

Dear KarlV you have clearly lost the debate in the German Wikipedia and here you go again trying to defame in the English one. Judging by your comments in the German Wiki, you are the last person in the world who can claim neutrality, let alone knowledge on the subject. What is your real agenda? Oldrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.51.151 (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear KarlV, cool down. You have already tried to mob de Zayas in the German Wikipedia with your 30 or so entries against him. You are certainly not "neutral". And the scholarly reception of the books of de Zayas are sufficiently documented in this English article -- or don't you want to believe the American Journal of International Law and the Cambridge Law Journal? Let's not import German Vandalism into the Amerikan Wiki, please ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.31.120 (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality? KarlV is the last person in the world to want neutrality. He has an axe to grind and he grinds it. For whatever reason, he has taken it upon himself to defame de Zayas in the discussion page of the article on "Alfred de Zayas" in the German wiki, where he has generated some 30 entries all by himself, duly contradicted by other Wiki-users, but he does not seem to care. Now he wants to do the same kind of vandalism in the English wiki. KarlV has a problem. paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.192.254 (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The comments of KarlV in the German Wiki appear to be deliberately defamatory. Everybody knows the old Roman saying "calumniare audacter, semper aliquid haeret" -- slander with audacity, always something will stick. In an encyclopedia, however, we do not want this kind of attitude. The links to the websites provided in the Zayas article provide a good overview of his past and present activities. It is not a question of who likes de Zayas and who does not. This is not a beauty contest. The question is what impact he has had. The fact is that he is the first American to have written on the expulsion of the Germans after World War II, a matter that had been totally taboo. He deserves a lot of credit for writing "Nemesis at Potsdam" (Routledge) and "A Terrible Revenge" (Macmillan). Moreover, he is the only author who has taken an interdisciplinary approach to the subject and dealt with it from both the perspective of the historian and with the eye of the lawyer. He can do this, because he has doctorates in both fields. But de Zayas is not limited to German topics, and his publications on the indigenous, minorities, on the victims of the Armenian genocide, on the victims of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and on the victims of expulsion and spoliation in Cyprus are just as important. raymond lohne, ph.d columbia college chicagoRaymond lohne 02:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

KarlV should read Dr de Zayas’s books before criticising them. They concern actual events, not imagined ones, and they are well-researched, well-written and highly authorative. They are impeccable presentations both from a legal and a historic point of view, as a glance at only a sample of the expert reviews he has received makes clear. KarlV argues that they are not scientific, but wartime atrocities are not defined in terms of science, but in law, history and emotion.

KarlV obviously disagrees with Dr De Zayas’s findings, but is that any reason for highly personal attacks? Maybe he believes that the atrocities inflicted on Germans 1944-50 were well and truly merited and were only natural justice, thus justified. Or perhaps he does not believe they happened. It would help us to understand his view-point if he made clear which of these 2 positions he holds.

In any case the atrocities covered in Dr De Zayas’s books happened, and they cannot be wished away. No other nation in modern times has had to suffer “collective guilt” in the same way Germany has. There are many examples since WWII of nations getting out of control, invading neighbours and carrying out genocidal attacks on other people, but we don’t blame ordinary Iraqis for Saddam’s crimes, we don’t apply “collective guilt” to ordinary Cambodians for the genocide of Pol Pot, and we don’t hold ordinary Russians in contempt for Soviet Communist Party excesses, or Serbs for the crimes of Milosovic or Tito. So why do we apply the concept of “collective guilt” (itself a dubious and illegal one) to ordinary Germans, even those born AFTER 1945? And why is KarlV, presumably a German himself, so keen to prolong the “collective guilt” of his nation? Or ignore their suffering, perhaps even that of his own ancestors? Is he a masochist?

The Nazi Party carried out many inhuman and infamous atrocities during WWII, and we hear lots and lots about them. They are never out of our newspapers or off our TV screens, even 62 years after the war. The victorious allies inflicted many inhuman and infamous atrocities on ordinary Germans during and after the war, including the ethnic cleansing that de Zayas writes about. There are no TV programmes made about those crimes, and precious few books written about them. They were ignored and hidden for years by newspapers and historians. Dr de Zayas has done the world a service by lifting the lid of censorship and cover-up that surrounds them, and for this he deserves plaudits, not defamation.

Proud Angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.182.9 (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

De Zayas is President of PEN International Centre Suisse romand -- this covers the French speaking Cantons of Switzerland -- Geneva, Vaud, Neuchatel, Fribourg, Berne, Valais, Jura. But all French-speaking residents of Switzerland can become members of the PEN Centre Suisse romand. There are no "ethnic" French cantons. There is also a Deutschschweizer PEN Zentrum and a Centro della Svizerra Italiana. Johanna Müller85.3.222.33 11:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * de Zayas activism against torture and indefinite detention is worth noting, in particular his lectures and publications concerning Guantanamo. These include a 70-odd page article entitled "The Status of Guantanamo Bay and the Status of the Detainees" in the 2004 Law Review of the University of British Columbia, the small book published by the University of Trier in German 2005 under the title "Die amerikanische Besetzung von Guantanamo", the full-page article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 30 December 2003 "Wem gehört Guantanamo Bay" and the chapter "Le Comité des Droits de l'Homme et le Défi de Guantanamo" in the Liber Amicorum for Professor Abdelfattah Amor, 2006. He also collaborated with two Swiss artists Christoph Büchel and Gianni Moretti in a successful exhibit at the Centre Culturel Suisse in Paris, and gave the opening lecture, favourably reported by L'Humanité on 25 September 2004. Dr. JvA 217.169.133.249 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.humanite.fr/2004-09-25_Cultures_-Guantanamo-centre-culturel

Dear KarlV. Would you please leave this article in peace. You have already put more than 40 edits and discussion items on "Alfred de Zayas" in the German article, much of it demonstrably wrong. Please behave. Dr. JvA 217.169.133.249 (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear KarlV. You will not be allowed to vandalize the English article as you have done with the German. Your additions to the German have been either wrong or ideologically tainted. You have been corrected by other Wiki users again and again and you do not seem to accept that you have been proven wrong. you have deleted relevant information and added silly sources that have been proven misleading or just plain dead ends. As far as divulging the exact date of birth of Alfred de Zayas, believe me, this is not important to Wiki users. It suffices to know he was born in 1947. Not everyone is so vain as to want to have his birthday made public. Please stop searching the internet for trivia. What is important is the significant human rights work that de Zayas has done in his career, the innovations he introduced in the Office of the Hith Commissioner for Human Rights, the work he has done for minorities and indigenous. Stop looking at your own German belly-button. Not everything revolves around the second world war. His books on WW2 were quite well received in the academic community, positively reviewed and had many editions. A brief mention of that is enough in the Wiki. More emphasis should be given to de Zayas's innovative literary work on Rilke and Hesse. But you are certainly not the person to do it. Please do go elsewhere. 192.91.247.212 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading all comments and looking on the aspersions of IPs here, definitely, this article is not balanced and should be revised accurately.--KarlV (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments by other editors
I was about to restore KarlV's comment that was deleted by an anon editor but ran into an edit conflict with ESkog who beat me to it. Please do not remove comments of other editors. Respond to them and rebut their arguments but do not delete them. See WP:TALK for Wikipedia guidelines regarding Talk Pages. --Richard (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Another edit conflict - seems we're in agreement here. Please do NOT remove Talk page comments by other users. This is considered vandalism, and has been an ongoing problem on this page. Because some participants in this discussion appear to be using a dynamic IP address, you may be blocked without further warning. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate and birthplace
I have mixed feelings regarding the specific birthdate rather than just the year. Obviously, we provide birth dates for the most famous personages especially if they are deceased. Providing the birth date for a living person is a bit more sensitive as providing your birth date is one of the ways that you can establish identity over the phone to banks and ägovernments. On the other hand, if the information is already public, there isn't much invasion of privacy in publishing it here as well.

However, I don't understand what the objection is to mentioning that de Zayas is Cuban-born. I'm not sure that it is important information but I don't see that it is unencyclopedic either. I'd be interested to hear what the arguments are for deleting that.

--Richard (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary for Wiki lesers to know the exact birthday of a living person. It is not in the public domain and Wiki should not make it public. KarlV must have done a lot of useless internet research in order to find out. As far as I can gather, no book or article by Alfred de Zayas carries this information, nor for that matter the place of birth or the family relationship to a Cuban president. This may be juicy information for a boulevard newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. Consult any encyclopedia (including Wiki) about other human rights activists like Aryeh Neier of the Open Society Institute or Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, and you will not find either exact date or place of birth. This belongs to the private sphere of living persons and adds nothing but a momentary thrill to the reader. Gancefort (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, heh, tell that to the editors of the Erika Steinbach article. I agree on the birthdate but not completely on the birthplace.  At least, not in principle.  Where someone was born, where they were raised and what their parentage and mother culture is can affect who they are and how they think.  Now, it may be the case that having been born in Cuba does not affect who de Zayas is and how he thinks.  Or it might.  As a general principle, it is not necessarily trivia.  Perhaps it is in this case.  Which is why I didn't get involved in the earlier edit war over the phrase "Cuban-born".  I'd like to hear what other people think if anybody else has an opinion.  --Richard (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to leave out the place of birth, it is absolutely not important for this article, where he is born. Totally not interesting, where he is born, the important information is what he published and did/does in his life. 213.39.131.54 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)CS

I don't really have a dog in this fight - I don't know anything about this guy. I will just point out that Manual of Style (biographies) is clear that birth date should be part of the lead paragraph. This is elaborated further in Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which seems to indicate that when the information is available, we should include it. I cannot find a general styleguide which discusses whether to include birthplace, but my general feeling is that again, if it is known, that is pretty much a staple of any biography. What is "not interesting" to one reader may be fascinating to another; it's not neutral for us to try to make those kinds of value judgments. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

«KarlV must have done a lot of useless internet research in order to find out». I really do not understand the bad faith undertone of this comment. No, it is very simple to find the information if you can read Spanish. E.g. you can read in SIGLO XXI (from 30 March 2000), the Journal of the Cuban Committee for Human Rights (CCPDH), that de Zayas is cuban born and also his family relationship («cubano de nacimiento y sobrino nieto el ex presidente de la República y erudito Alfredo de Zayas» – it is available online here). And the web Journal Encuentro en la red from 27 May 2004 wrote ''«Dr. Alfredo de Zayas, cubanoamericano —ex asesor jurídico del Comité de Derechos Humanos de la ONU y bisnieto de uno de los presidentes republicanos de la Isla»'' (you can read it online here), repeating that de Zayas was born in Cuba and that he is a great-grandson of a former president of Cuba. Also concerning the birthday, this information was published in Germany 1996 in the book Kösener Corpslisten, where all biography data of members of different German fraternities are published. Because de Zayas was member of Corps Rhenania Tübingen his data was also published there. Additionally this information is also published in a website here. So, there are no secrets. Concerning the question of Richard, and I agree with that: ''«Now, it may be the case that having been born in Cuba does not affect who de Zayas is and how he thinks. Or it might.»'' Alter the interventions here and on de:WP I think, yes - it looks like that it might.--KarlV (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an expression in Germany: " Wenn zwei sich streiten, freut sich der dritte", means "When two people quarrel, a third rejoices". Here are two positions fighting, it is not sure till today, what is true, right and appropriate regarding the place. So, if it is not clear, we cannot just take one of the positions, that would /could be a lie to Wiki-readers. We have to delete the place of birth, so we do not post wrong information. 213.39.139.151 (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)CS


 * Pardon, where are two positions fighting? The most important issue should be that Wikipedia articles are based on information based on verifiable and reputable sources. I saw that information in this article is missing and that the description of the person de Zayas is not balanced. And I am not the only one (see the development of the German article). So someone should add the neutrality box here. So please, what is the lie? That he was born on 31 May 1947 in Habana, Cuba?--KarlV (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC) By the way another source here published 15 June 2002 in a Journal called ‘’Ostpreussenblatt’’); and here too, oh and there also.

One opinion says he is born in Cuba, the other position says that information is not right. If you want a balance as you say, you have to find a balance in this arguing by just skipping this information. You write on your wikipage you are a humanist, so be that tolerant and respect the opinions of others. You are totally alone with your opinion. No book indicates he is born in Cuba. Your sources are too weak. The way you aruge and act here makes me suspicious that you have an emotional, personal interest by attacking de Zayas. Please leave your personal conflicts outside Wiki. Thanks.213.39.139.151 15:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)MP

Since you do the same data violation procedure on german Wiki, I kindly remind you that in international as well as in german and European law you are the law breaker. Private datas are the property of the individual person. -->Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung! You want to force somebody to open his personal datas. That is a violation of german/ international data protection law.213.39.139.151 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)MP

--it is really irrelevant where the guy was born -- or for that matter on what particular day. He is not a movie star and does not get fan mail. What is important for the Wiki reader is to know that he studied both law and history at Harvard, that he worked as a lawyer with Cyrus Vance, that he took a Fulbright and went to Germany where he got a Ph.D. in history. The business with his membership in a fraternity in Germany is of no importance and only of marginal interest -- a curiosity, but not something that belongs in his bio. Maybe he was also a member of a fraternity at Harvard, maybe he was a choir boy, maybe he sings in the Cathedral choir. Just look at the bios of many other prominent human rights professionals -- much shorter and to the point. This article is already too long as it is. Important is his work as a senior lawyer with the United Nations, his book publications, his innovations with respect to the right to the homeland and the human right to peace, his work as historical advisor to television programs, his PEN Club and other literary activities. Whatever the actual date and place of birth, let the guy have his private sphere. None of his books or articles divulge this information, and it is also not necessary.Gancefort 16:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ease up there with the borderline legal threats. It's not illegal to say where a person was born or on what date. We do it routinely in our biography articles. If verifiable sources state that de Zayas was born in Cuba, that is information which should be in our biography. If there are sources disputing his birthplace, then that is probably also information which should be here. I don't see here any credible reason to not include the birthplace of an individual. No one person can "own" an article, not even the subject of the article. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

--Dear ESkog. When you google prominent living persons, among others distinguished human rights professionals, you will rarely find the exact birthdate and frequently also not the place of birth. In an encyclopedia article about living persons, it suffices to give the year of birth and the citizenship of the person, in this case US, and the place of residence, in this case Geneva, Switzerland. An encyclopedia article is there to inform the reader about pertinent facts in the life of a person. De Zayas merits an article in the Wiki not by virtue of his birthdate or birthplace but because for 22 years he was the principal lawyer and drafter with the UN Human Rights Committee, because he contributed significantly to its jurisprudence, and to the case law of the UN Committee Against Torture, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, because he launched the United Nations Society of Writers, which he presided for 15 years, because he has been active in the Swiss PEN since 1989 and has been the President of the PEN in the French speaking cantons of Switzerland since 2006. He has important publications on minorities, indigenous, ethnic cleansing, indefinite detention, Armenia, Cyprus, Guantanamo, etc. A short entry suffices. Gancefort 12:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A brief survey of articles which are in some of the same categories as de Zayas:
 * Hannah Arendt
 * Andreas Hillgruber
 * Leonard Peikoff
 * Hugh Trevor-Roper
 * Karl Llewellyn
 * These all seem to give the date of birth as well as the place of birth as a normal matter of course. I don't really know what biographies you have ever read that don't include this kind of information. If you can find another article on Wikipedia which does not provide this information (if it's available), please let us know or fix it yourself, but it seems pretty clear that this is our standard practice. You keep giving us long diatribes about other things about de Zayas, but their inclusion certainly doesn't preclude including the basic facts about his life. I don't really get where you're coming from here. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--The difference is that all individuals you mention are dead. In the case of biographies of living persons, the exact date and place of birth is frequently not given, e.g. many entries in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Human Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gancefort (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, that's a fair point. Let's see if the biographies on currently living folks are any different...
 * David Irving
 * Harold James (historian)
 * Saul Friedländer
 * Carl A. Brasseaux
 * Seems like, again, if the information is available and verifiable, our practice is to include it. I really think you're probably in the wrong on this one. It's simply a matter of style. It's odd to claim that an individual's privacy is being violated by sharing their date or place of birth, especially when (as has been demonstrated above) both are publicly documented. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

-- well, yes and no. I am sure that there are plenty of articles on living persons in the Wiki that do not give that information, and I regret that I have no time to prove it to you. I refer to the practice in reputable encyclopedias like the Oxford Encyclopedia of Human Rights. An editor usually pays attention to the wishes of living persons, and if the many books of de Zayas never reveal this information, it is a clear indication that the author prefers his privacy. Is there any good reason to ignore this clear indication? The Wiki reader is well served with a brief article on de Zayas, and the birth year suffices. The sources given above may or may not be reliable. There is much incorrect information in the internet. The question is not whether someone finds some piece of information somewhere, but whether it is trustworthy, and whether other considerations would not tip the balance toward prudence. Gancefort 07:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some words to the IP 213.39.139.151: If you think that you can intimidate or threaten me, you will not have success and additionally this is not the way we are collaborating here. Nobody breaks laws if published and available information is used for articles. Neither on de:WP nor on en:WP.--KarlV 09:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Biographical articles include the date of birth, if we have it and it can be reliably referenced. End of discussion. The IP making legal threats to intimidate users has been blocked. Neil  ☎  10:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

--Dear Neil, dear KarlV -- I have seen no threats by IPs on this page. I have seen argument pro and con. Now, it seems that you two want to destablilize this entry by first claiming that it is unsourced, and then by deleting the sources (there used to be 25 footnotes to reputable books, articles and sites), and even deleting the external internet sites with pertinent articles. This shows rather bad faith on your part and proves that you are not neutral but simply want to manipulate this article. Gancefort 10:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen threats, which is why I have blocked the IP. Your edit warring adn bad faith accusations are unwelcome.  You and KarlV have both been blocked for edit warring for 24 hours.  I suggest on your return you stop.  Read Ownership of articles, Edit war and External links.  A large dump of external links is not acceptable.   Neil   ☎  10:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Neil. You may not have seen the German Wiki article "Alfred de Zayas", or the discussion. Back in October there was a Wiki-rage occasioned by a clearly libelous statement put in by KarlV and supported by Giro, which finally was removed on 22 October, when it became obvious to everyone that the statement was libelous. KarlV, Giro, Jürgen Schulz and others have been vandalizing the German article for two months, putting in wrong information that has been shown to be wrong by other Wiki users. Just to give one example: they absolutely want to discredit the book "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau" by referring to its being "widerlegt" in a book by Manfred Messerschmidt/Wüllner. If you go to the library and take the book out, you will see that the book does not mention de Zayas in the text, in the footnotes, in the index, that the book does not deal with the Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle or in any way disproves de Zayas. Now, although Wiki users have repeated pointed this out, KarlV and Giro keep putting it in. Not only that -- they delete from the article the relevant fact that Professor Howard Levie of the US Naval War Academy in Newport, an known expert on war crimes and prisoner of war law, wrote the preface of the book. They also delete the fact that the project "Wehrmacht Untersuchungsstelle" was a scholarly project 1976-79 supervised by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, that two international conferences were held in Göttingen and Cologne to discuss the progress of the project and eventually to approve the manuscript for publication. You can read all of this in the preface of the German edition by Professor Dietrich Rauschning, the then director of the Institut für Völkerrecht of the University of Göttingen, and later judge under the Dayton Accords in Sarajevo.  KarlV and Giro have deleted all mention to the close supervision of the project by the officials of the German federal archives, who participated in both conferences in Göttingen and Cologne. KarlV and Giro have deleted mention of the positive reception of the book in academia (they pretend this is not true), and attack it by citing an article by a certain Jürgen Wieland. If you check the article on Jürgen Wieland in the German Wikipedia, you learn that he was not a historian at all, but a State prosecutor in the German Democratic Republic and that he was dismissed from his functions after the reunification of Germany. Now, besides the unreliability of the source, you may wish to see exactly what Wieland had to say. Does he make valid arguments about de Zayas?  When you read the article by Wieland, you realize that the article does not deal with the Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle, its members or its methodology, nor with Alfred de Zayas, but with the problem of German military justice and death sentences against German soldiers in WWII. The only mention of de Zayas is in a footnote that simply questions de Zayas and refers to the Messerschmidt/Wüllner book. It is obvious that this reference should not be included in the Wikipedia, because it does not say it it is claimed that it says. And the persons who keep putting this wrong information in, should be blocked in the future. God knows how many other articles in the Wikipedia they have vandalized without people noticing. Notwithstanding repeated corrections on the discussion page, KarlV and some of his friends put everything back in.  I believe that these people are taking Wiki readers on a ride and doing a disservice to the credibility of Wikipedia. 193.239.220.249 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the German Wikipedia. Disputes there do not dictate article issues on the English Wikipedia (and vice-versa, of course). In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume they are not vandals out to discredit Wikipedia.  Your assertions are not sufficient.  However, edit-warring from both sides is unacceptable, particularly when it is over something all our biographical articles should have wherever possible, which is basic information such as place and date of birth.  Neil   ☎  15:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Old books are getting outdated all the time by newer research. Whether or not "widerlegt" is the correct degree of wrongness discovered may be open to discussion, but this doesn't negate the necessity to confront Zayas' publication with the current state of the field. --Pjacobi (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)