Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas/Archive 3

BLP
User Schwalker should be reminded of the Wiki rule that "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous". Surely it is libelous to suggest that de Zayas is a "revisionist". It does not help that the defamation appeared in the H-Net. Schwalker is doing Wikipedia a disservice by citing this libelous source. The fact is that the books of de Zayas have been excellently reviewed in the scholarly press. Of course, there is an occasional critical review -- but Rainer Ohliger's review is simply defamatory. Besides, the book in question "A Terrible Revenge" just had a new edition with Macmillan that has had very good reviews, including in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Suffice it to say, that if there were any problem with de Zayas, Ambassador Robert Murphy would not have written the preface of "Nemesis at Potsdam", Professor Howard Levie would not have written the preface of "Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau" and Professor Charles Barber (a left-wing Democrat and former candidate for the US Congress for the Democratic Party) would not have written the preface of "A Terrible Revenge". oa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.39.52 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality template
This is necessary at the top of the article as long as a group of users under different IPs is removing material supported by reputable sources about the article's subject. --Schwalker (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Schwalker. The neutrality template cannot be added again and again ad nauseam. Several other Wiki-users have taken it out (after months of discussions on this talk page) for good reason. There has been sufficient discussion on de Zayas and the article has been improved bz the addition of 74 footnotes and references to reputable sources. What you seem to want is to introduce a biased review of one book by de Zayas. That source is already included in the Wiki article on A Terrible Revenge, and that must be enough. You do not have to import it into this article, which is about the PERSON de Zayas. If there are articles on three of his books, that is where your comments should be made, not here. Although this particular book that you so obviously dislike was negatively reviewed by Ohliger, the fact is that prominent historians and professors of international law have reviewed it positively, as you can easily determine. Moreover, this is only a small facet in the activities of de Zayas, whom I know from the United Nations. In fact, today, 7 February, he has just delivered a masterly lecture on the right to development in the context of a panel in room 22 of the Palais des Nations in Geneva, as a side event to the 7th session of the Human Rights Council. The issue of the German expellees is indeed an important one, but de Zayas is far more involved in questions of torture, abolition of the death penalty, freedom of expression, minority rights, indigenous populations, etc. The cheap smear by Ohliger is of little weight in comparison to de Zayas' numerous human rights publications -- all of them in reputable journals and publishing houses, as shown in the footnotes to this artice. Dr. JvA 217.169.133.249 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reason why the neutrality template should stay is the repeated deletion of the mentioning of de Zayas' opinions about the rehabilitation and honouring of deserters, and about the Wehrmacht exhibitions in 1995 and 2001. --Schwalker (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All allegations are stupid nonsense...you search the hair in the soup we say in Germany. You should start mentioning all the good references. It is obvious and makes us suspicious that you ONLY find the alleged bad sources. You have no relevant and appropriate source for you allegations. Instead it is YOU who is not neutral. 80.171.35.222 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)CS


 * I have made no allegations but represent what is written in several sources. It is not an allegation against someone to present their opinions. De Zayas opinions on Wehrmacht deserters and -exhibitions are sourced by his own website alfreddezayas.com . The interview had been broadcasted and printed before in Germany. The other sources have been published in renowned media such as H-Net. --Schwalker (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see not a single source !!!!!! Show us a direct links and sources. The sources you mention are too weak. 213.39.194.82 (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)CS


 * Others before me, and I have supported our additional material with sources in the footnotes. Of course now you don't see them in the article, since they have been reverted away again. You can see the different versions by going through the Revision-history and clicking on "(last)" to see the changes in the article. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, here is the right place to place your sources... show us!213.39.194.82 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)CS

Neutral is who looks left and right, not only left. Not all deserteurs derserted because of their conscience, but because of other reasons. What you do here is saying, all did the same actions and all are guilty (soldiers) or not guilty (derserteurs). That is a black/white thinking and lacks the perspective that there are good elements within the bad and bad things in the good.

Back in 1995 Mr de Zayas was Gutachter for the CDU at the Rechtsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages He presented the same point of view as Professor Dr. Horst Möller, Director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, who was the Gutachter for the FDP. Both Professor Möller and de Zayas argued that you SHOULD rehabilitate deserters on a case-by-case basis, but that you cannot and must not rehabilitate them en masse, because a great many deserters did NOT desert because of conscientious objection, or disagreement with the Nazis, but because of personal reasons or criminal behaviour. De Zayas presented to the Bundestag a collection of 100 Feldurteile of deserters who had committed serious offences and who evidently deserted in order to escape punishment. Thus, by rehabilitating all deserters, you would be rehabilitating war criminals who had been convicted of 1. murder of civilians 2. rape 3. burglary 4. theft from other soldiers 5. theft of army supplies 6. desertion. Mr. De Zayas published his Gutachten in "Humanitäres Völkerrecht", the magazine of the Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, published by Professor Ipsen of the University of Bochum: "Stellungnahme vor dem Rechtsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages zu den Drucksachen 13/353 und 13/354 betr. Unrechtsurteile wegen Fahnenflucht/Desertion, Wehrkraftzersetzung oder Wehrdienstverweigerung während des Zweiten Weltkrieges", in Humanitäres Völkerrecht, No. 1, 1996, pp. 18-28. 80.171.87.213 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)CS

Hallo, 213.39.194.82, since you insist on direct links to sources: for example a source for Mr de Zayas' bithday and -place is the journal Deutsche Umschau, May 2001, p.3, which you've just removed from the article here. --Schwalker (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ingolstadt Institute
This is indeed a private right fringe revisionist association. For example see the reproduction of an article from the German journal Blick nach Rechts (View to the Right, in my translation):


 * History Revisionist Association at 14. December 2006
 * Ingolstadt. The 25th years of existence was celebrated by the history revisionist "Ingolstadt Research Institute for Contemporary History" ["Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt"] (ZFI) at this year's Harvest convention on November 11 at Ingolstadt.


 * The ZFI, "an institution" ("National Zeitung" [German far right weekly)]) and "corrective of everlasting truths" ("Junge Freiheit", [German new right monthly paper]) was founded on November 21 1981 by Alfred Schickel [...]


 * In circles of the extreme right, ZFI conductor Schickel is regarded as a "legend-killer", who "has already moved some obstinate legends to the right place" ("Nation & Europa" [German monthly paper of the extreme right]). [...]

The wikipedia article should not hide this information from the readers. --Schwalker (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of hiding information from the readers. It is simply a question whether this information is of any interest to the Wikipedia reader. Again you are relying in "guilt by association" -- if A receives an award from B and C thinks that B is a right winger, then A should also be a right winger? You must be kidding! Who cares what Nation Europa says about ZFI! Important is what die ZEIT, Der Spiegel, the American Journal of International Law have written on de Zayas -- all positive. And if you mention ZFI, which is a boringly conservative think tank, you should remember that Professor Alexander Demandt, one of the most respected German historians with many best sellers to his name, held the Laudatio for de Zayas. 84.203.178.18 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Not about the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt. Characterisations of whether the Institute is far right or not, or revisionist or not, are better left to the article on the Institute - as, when and if it is created. (Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt would be a good basis for such an article). Neıl  ☎  10:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Giro and KarlV tell us amusing things. But, really, who cares who one of the great grandfathers of de Zayas was? Maybe one of them was also a trapeze artist. What is important is what de Zayas has done. It is clear from this article that he is a recognized authority in the field of hman righs, that he worked for decades in the United Nations, that he has written thirty or so articles for the Ebncyclopedia of Public Internbational Law, Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Encyclopedia of Genocide, that he has lectured at Harvard, Oxford, London School of Economics, Strassburg. It also becomes apparent that he has annoyed some people. Of course, if you break taboos, some people are not going to like it. Of course there are some negative reviews of his books -- otherwise there would have been no taboo to break.  What is significant is that the books were reviewed very widely and that the bulk of the reviews was positive -- in the Times Educational Supplenent, in the Sunday Times, in the American Journal of International Law, in Archiv des Voelkerrechts.  Other Wiki-users have pointed this out already. It is significant that the books are still in print and have reached very many people -- in 6th, 7th, even 14th revised editions. As a huzman rights lawyer and activist, de Zayas has focused on the fate of some forgotten victims -- the indigenous of America and Australia, religious mnorities, the Armenians, the Greek Cypriots, the Serbians of the Krajina, etc.  I find it ridiculous to keep harping on the issue of the German expelees of 1944-48.  Of course the majority of the 15 million German expellees were victims.  What else can you call them?  And of course their fate cannot be dismissed simply by saying that Hitler started the war and lost it.  There were other elements that played a role, and to say the obvious does not make de Zayas a "revisionist" (a word that etimologically is fine, but unfortunately it has negative political connotations).  Most historians recognize that the expelles of Pomerania, Silesia etc. got a raw deal. The doctrine of collective guilt cannot be espoused by the Wikipedia. When everything is said and done, de Zayas is but one among many human rights activists. Perhaps the only thing that he may be remembered for are his translations of Rilke and Hesse. Literature is so much nicer than politics.  Johanna 194.209.131.192 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To expand - the most neutral way of describing the institue would be to simply state its name, avoiding any commentary. Neıl ☎  13:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Schwalker, the ZFI is a conservative thinktank. It has nothing at all to do with left or right wing groups. Many of its publications have been well reviewed in Die Zeit, FAZ and other mainstream newspapers. You cite "Blick nach Rechts" -- excuse me if I laugh out loud -- Americans do not know that this organization is an extreme-left outfit, a remnant of old antifa, communist and Stasi groups -- hardly a source worth citing, and surely not in the English language Wikipedia. Far more interesting for the reader is who spoke in honour of de Zayas at Ingolstadt -- as you can read in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, it was none other than the bestselling Professor Alexander Demandt from the University of Berlin, who publishes primarily in C.H.Beck, one of the most respected houses in Germany. And who spoke in Stuttgart on Human Rights Day 2007 to honour de Zayas? The former Dean of the Law Faculty and Professor of International Law at the University of Tübingen Thomas Oppermann.  Would you like to defame these people too? Gancefort (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

I don't defame anyone, and you should not make such accusations against me. The Blick nach rechts is a reliable source for wikipedia, it is not extremist, and you have presented no source for defaming it as a "Stasi [former GDR intelligence service] group". The journal is partly funded by the Ministry of the Interior, the patron is Ute Vogt, former Secretary of the State and vice president of the Social democrats party until 2007. As far as I know, publications of the ZFI are not regarded as serious scientific contributions by the quality press. I have no explication why Mr Demandt has participated in the ceremony for de Zayas, Minister for consumers and agriculture Horst Seehofer (besides a born Ingolstädter) had been heavily critisized in 2006 for sending a greeting to the ZFI. --Schwalker (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Schwalker. American Wiki-users may not know, but many German Wiki-users do know what to think of BNR -- an extreme left-wing outfit which regularly defames anyone who is right of Stalin. Accordingly, BNR is far from being a reliable source for the Wikipedia. If German public funds go into funding BNR, that is Germany's problem and Germany's responsibility. Indeed, many Germans have reason to have problems with their past, but that is no justification to import their inner-German Vergangenheitsbewältigung (with all its acrimony and ad hominem attacks) into the Wikipedia. No one, really, has any interest in knowing that Horst Seehofer was heavily criticized for sending a greeting to the ZFI. If he was indeed criticized, by whom?  By BNR? Surely not by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung! And if he was criticized, you may ask yourself what is wrong in German society, where freedom of research and freedom of expression seems to be restricted more and more by a particularly German variety of "political correctness". If you go to the library and take the book by Alexander Demandt "Macht und Recht. Die grossen Prozesse der Geschichte", you will see that Demandt entrusted the chapter on the Nuremberg Trials to de Zayas. Ask yourself why.  The book was published by C.H.Beck, one of Germany's leading publishers, which also published six editions of de Zayas' "Nemesis at Potsdam".  Zayas has given several lectures at the Freie Universität Berlin at the invitation of Professor Demandt, as well as lectures at the University of Tübingen at the invitation of Professor Thomas Oppermann, lectures at All Souls College, Oxford, at the invitation of Ian Brownlie, etc. You seem to spend your time scouring the internet for possible defamation of de Zayas. Calumniare audacter, semper aliquid haeret. But while searching the internet, you must have come accross de Zayas' work in the United Nations, for the International Committee of the Red Cross, his lectures at universities throughout the world. That is what is Wiki-relevant, and not the muckraking of BNR! 193.239.220.249 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Schwalker. You have erased the above contribution of 193.239.220.249. This is inacceptable. The above Wiki-user makes an important point, namely that BNR is not a reliable source for Wiki. He is right. Please do not import internal German querelles into the English-language Wikipedia. Gancefort (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

By calling the Blick nach rechts "extreme left" and "Stalinist" the IP is defaming a magazine which is aiming to protect the German democracy. Gancefort, you are supporting the IP by reinserting this libel. This is not acceptable for Wikipedia talk pages, and I ask you to remove the lmessage of IP 193.239.220.249 again.

The magazine's opinion about the Ingolstadt Inst. is mainstream in Germany. For example in 1996, Die Zeit called the Head of Ingolstadt Inst. and other similar authors "Extremism striving to the center", and saw a new "war guilt lie" forming to which the serious historians should oppose. The FAZ on occasion of the award in 2001 even did not print the Institutes name, and just wrote of a "rightwing conservative foundation". However, I agree with Neil's proposal that it is sufficient for this wikipedia article just to mention the prize was awarded by the Ingolstadt institute. --Schwalker (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is quite ridiculous. BLR goes back to the German Democratic Republic and has a long track record of desinformation in the 1980's. When it went broke it was bought up by the SPD to use it as a defamation tool against the CDU. In the USA people do not know BNR, but in Germany it is notorious as a political tool, not a scholarly or scientific one, and certainly not reliable. It is ludicrous to pretend that BNR aims at protecting German democracy.  Exactly the opposite is the case.  It is a vestige of totalitarianism and not very far from the denunciation system of the Nazi dictatorship. 84.203.178.18 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected
I have reverted back to the version before the latest bout of edit-warring began and protected the article for a week. Take this week to discuss what should and should not be on the article. If there is no discussion over a piece of information (such as birth date, place of birth, the status of the Ingolstadt institute, whatever), and the edit-warring simply starts over it when the protection lapses, I will semi-protect the article indefinitely and consider blocking accounts.

I am going to ask for checkuser input to see if there are any links between editors of this page and the anonymous IP editors, and if there are, I am definitely going to start blocking accounts. I am tired of this fight spilling over onto the English Wikipedia. Neıl ☎  11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources:
 * 1) Concerning birthday: Journal of the Association of expulsed Germans (BdV) called Deutsche Umschau from May 2001, page 3 (source 1).
 * 2) Concerning birthday: German Journal called Ostpreussenblatt from 15 June 2002 (source 2). Journal is also linked with the Association of expulsed Germans (BdV).
 * 3) Concerning birthplace and birthday: in the book Kösener Corpslisten from 1996. All biography data of members of different German fraternities are published here. Because de Zayas was member of Corps Rhenania Tübingen his data was also published there: "31. Mai 1947 (Havanna, Kuba)". The information used in this book is coming from de Zayas himself, because it was him who delivered this information to the fraternity. There is a website where the content of this book is pulished online (source 3).
 * 4) Concerning birth background: in SIGLO XXI from 30 March 2000, the Journal of the Cuban Committee for Human Rights (CCPDH) in the US you can read that de Zayas is cuban born and read also about his family relationship, e.g. that he is a great-grandson of a former president of Cuba («cubano de nacimiento y sobrino nieto el ex presidente de la República y erudito Alfredo de Zayas» (source 4).
 * 5) Concerning birth background: 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», repeating that de Zayas was born in Cuba and that he is a great-grandson of a former president of Cuba (source 5).--KarlV (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read several books by de Zayas. They are better sourced that most history books in the market and he does not rehash history. As you can confirm in the hundreds of footnotes, he has consulted archives in many countries, interviewed senior politicians and diplomats who participated at the Potsdam Conference, interviewed the victims of the expulsion, military judges, witnesses etc.. The books also have an interdisciplinary perspective, since de Zayas is both a lawyer and historian. I do not know what is the matter with Schwalker and KarlV. Here is an American of hispanic origin who takes an interest in German history and does groundbreaking research. He is not German nor of German descent. Nor is he Polish or Czech descent. Sorry if some people disagree with his conclusions, but they are methodically well grounded. He is only interested in determining the facts and putting them in proper historical and legal perspective. This is what you expect scholars to do.(by: Gunther Marko, D-72172 Sulz am Neckar).

Unreliable sources: KarlV is notorious for introducing unreliable sources into the german language wikipedia article on de Zayas, claming that some historians had allegedly refuted a book by de Zayas. However, when the three sources were consulted, none of them contained any refutation of de Zayas. KarlV is not neutral and is only seeking to confuse readers. He had no less than fifty missleading comments in the german article on de Zayas and is conducting a private vendetta.(by: Gunther Marko, D-72172 Sulz am Neckar).194.97.234.246 (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I can see the conclusion of your edit is to breach the WP:NPA rule. This is not the way we are collaborating in Wikipedia, neither at en:WP nor at de:WP.--KarlV (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I kindly ask the admin to unprotect the site again. It is obvious that he is not a revisionist, otherwise you say all those libraries, all those famous newspapers like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, die Welt, etc., all those organizations he is a member of, all those governments in the world he worked with and finally the United Nations Office itself are too blind to see that they work with a revisionist. All those institutions and media in the world cannot be that stupid. It is also obvious that the allegations and citations do not consider the real details and the background of de Zayas-quotations. If you bring a citate please do not take them out of their context. Thanks. 213.39.164.88 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)CS

What you do is arbitrariness par excellence...If you would have read the above about de Zayas you would already have unprotected the site and stopped the idle chat. Arbitrariness is one of the worst human being character element. STOP IT, otherwise you discredit yourself totally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I repeat you discredit yourself with your arbitrary false, reputation damaging, statements. STOP IT, PLEASE! 80.171.34.120 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)CS

OK I've really had enough of this...I'd like to say these things and then hopefully Wikipedia will protect Dr. DeZayas from any further defamation of character... 1. stop this idle chat 2. de Zayas is in the first place a human rights lawyer and activist -- he has made a lasting mark in the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, for which he worked more than 20 years. The bulk of his publications are in this field, including many encyclopedia articles on issues such as Aggression, Nelson Mandela, Raoul Wallenberg, Guantanamo, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Forced Population Transfers, Ethnic Cleansing, etc. 3. de Zayas has written and lectured extensively on Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Diego García, Indefinite Detention, torture, rights of minorities, rights of indigenous peoples. 4. de Zayas was the first American author to address the issue of the expulsion of 15 million Germans at the end of World War II, a major demographic catastrophe that had been hitherto ignored by other American historians. His books were ground-breakers and are all in print, 30 years after publication of the first edition in 1977. The 14th revised edition takes into consideration all views, including those of critics like Rainer Ohliger. The 14th edition of "Die Nemesis at Potsdam" was brilliantly reviewed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung in 2006. For reviews see http://www.alfreddezayas.com/books.shtml 5. de Zayas is President of PEN Club in Switzerland is a published poet and essayist, a recognized Rilke- and Hesse translator. 6. de Zayas was the founder of the United Nations Society of Writers in 1989, which still exists 19 years later. See the article United Nations Society of Writers in the Wikipedia. He is the editor-in-chief of the United Nations literary journal "Ex Tempore". 7. Wiki-users KarlV, Giro and Schwalker are bringing inner-German quarrels into the English Wiki. The issue about who is a victim and who is not a victim is not a proper subject for the article on Alfred de Zayas. Go for that to the relevant Wiki entries. 8. The extreme-left German internet publication "Blick nach Rechts" is certainly not a reliable source for Wikipedia.

Raymond Lohne, Ph.D., Columbia College Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.221.45 (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Only to demonstrate how crude arguments take place here: "The extreme-left German internet publication "Blick nach Rechts"" This Journal is linked to the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Germany who never was "extrem-left" (and is actually member of the Governement), but of course in the eyes of extrem-right people yes. "Blick nach Rechts" is of course a realibale source. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution in Germany often refers in their appraisement to this journal (and they do not refer to extreme-left or extreme-right journals).--KarlV (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Raymond Lohne makes a lot of sense. "Blick nach Rechts" is a thoroughly unreliable source, certainly not identical with the SPD, but used by the SPD to defame CDU and CSU politicians. Once again, Giro and KarlV are bringing inner-German political quarrels into the English-language Wikipedia. BNR does not report about de Zayas' activities for human rights causes at the United Nations Human Rights Council, his lectures at Harvard, Oxford or Strasbourg. But if de Zayas once accepts an award from a conservative think tank like the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, this is reported because BNR has an axe to grind against ZFI. This is of no interest to an encyclopaedia. This is cheap muckraking! What makes de Zayas interesting is that he went to Germany on a Fulbright fellowship and devoted years of research to the taboo subject "expulsion of the Germans" and to the taboo subject "Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle". His books were hailed by the scholarly press and experienced many editions. "Die Nemesis von Potsdam" is now in 14th edition. "Die Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle" in 7th edition. The English versions of these books were praised in the Times Educational Supplement, in the Sunday Times, in British Book News, in the American Journal of International Law etc. -- this has been indicated by many Wiki-readers before. But Giro and KarlV want to find negative reviews and give them maximum publicity. Why? What is their agenda? Are they working for BNR? Every book gets some critical reviews!!! What matters is what the serious journals like Archiv des Völkerrechts say. The fact is that de Zayas has written about victims who hitherto had been ignored. He has also written about indigenous populations in America and Australia as victims, about the Armenians and other Christian minorities in the Ottoman empire, about the 200,000 expelled Greek Cypriots, about the Serbs of the Krajina. De Zayas is first and foremost a human rights expert and activist, who refuses to accept that there are first class and second class victims, who refuses to connive on the conspiracy of silence about certain victims, and who combats the immoral principle of "collective guilt". De Zayas does not make the primitive mistake of many German historians to depict world war II history only in the light of Hitler. He searches deeper -- and, as has been noted by many reviewers, carries out his analysis on the basis of original research in many archives in the world. De Zayas is a neutral voice, a historian who puts historical events in proper historical -- and legal -- context. But for the English reader de Zayas should not be identified only with German history. His work as a senior lawyer for the United Nations is surely more significant.213.39.161.248 (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)CS

These two busy-bodies KarlV and Giro continue their campaign against de Zayas, both in the English and in the German-language articles. They use false information, partly false information, or just insinuations. The material these individuals are imputing is not very relevant for a Wikipedia article on the former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee, PEN President in Switzerland, author of best-selling books and of more than 30 articles in the Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Encyclopedia of Genocide, etc. It is ludicrous to attempt to disqualify de Zayas because he received an award from the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle in Ingolstadt, an institute of conservative German historians. De Zayas has also received awards from the Armenian National Committee of America, from the Danube Swabian Association of America and Canada, from the Künstlergilde in Germany, etc. What Wikipedia readers expect is a brief informative article with suggestions for further reading. This article satisfies that need. And it should not be hijacked by German Wiki-users who are evidently fighting a purely German political battle. True, de Zayas did break a couple of taboos in Germany when he wrote his books and this earned him a number of enemies. But what is significant is that these books were very widely reviewed and received respectfully in academia, as we know from the reviews cited above. When all is said and done, de Zayas is primarily a human rights expert who has fought for less-known victims, whether German, Armenians or Cypriots. 62.167.61.121 (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the vehement service of different IPs here shows what is going on. Reliable published criticism at de Zayas should be oppressed.--KarlV (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh kmon Karl, if you give reliable published criticism in the right context together with the overwhelming academic recognition, there is no problem. But what you evidently want is to maximize criticism and to rely on political sources such as DNR. Try to show a sense of proportion. 62.167.61.121 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, no problem??? So let us start and see, what was published. Ah here: «Writing almost two decades ago, the human rights lawyer Alfred De Zayas told much the same story (A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994). A fitting critique of Allied approval of the transfers, his book was nonetheless marred by a territorial revisionism that struck a tone more reminiscent of the interwar period than the age of European unity and Ostpolitik.» And who published that? Eagle Glassheim, Princeton University, Department of History. Published by HABSBURG, September, 2001 (you can read it here). Really no problem?--KarlV (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Tot homines tot sententiae. Eagle Glasheim was reviewing a book by Detlef Brandes, in which Glasheim makes a passing comparison with the very first edition of "Nemesis at Potsdam" (published 1977 by Routledge in London and Boston). In the meantime there have been 14 editions of Nemesis at Potsdam, and each edition has incorporated new material and addressed some of the concerns of the reviewers. Glasheim, by the way, does recognize that "ultimately such events cry out for a critical evaluation; one cannot write the history of ethnic cleansing or its planning without coming to some basic moral conclusins. An ideal account would combine some of de Zayas' sense of outrage..." As indicated, this was not a review by Glasheim of de Zayas, but a passing recollection of a book he had read twenty years earlier. You may want to visit some of the other reviews of Nemesis:

"A lucid, scholarly and compassionate study" Tony Howarth, The Times Educational Supplement. 22 April 1977, p. 495.

"a well-organized and moving historical record ...a persuasive commendatry on the suffering which becomes inevitable when humanitarianism is subordinated to nationalism." Ben Ferencz in the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 72, October 1978, p. 960.

"De Zayas writes with sympathy for the refugees and moral indignation over what he, as an international lawyer, concludes was another crime against humanity, but he strives to show how Allied decisions regarding postwar Germany were the product of many factors, such as horror over Nazi atrocities, the passions of war and victory, and considerable ignorance on the part of Anglo-American leaders regarding the actual state of affairs in Central and Eastern Europe". Prof. Carl Anthon in American Historical Review, December 1978.

"Mr de Zayas... is surely right to dwell on their miseries and on the double standards of the victors. Some of them, after all, professed to believe in the principles of the Atlantic Charter. The book should cause argument and controversy; it deserves a wide readership." David Steeds in British Book News

"An excellent piece of historical research", A.K. Damodaran in International Studies, 1991

"An account of British and American acquiescence in the brutal expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes in East-Central Europe at the end of World War II. The author ... makes much of the legal (and moral) implications of the issue while understating its historical complexities." Christoph Kimmich in Foreign Affairs, 1977

"A young legal scholar from New York, Alfred de Zayas, has written a book on a subject long taboo and ignored by German writers -- the brutal expulsion of 16 million Germans from their homelands in Central and Eastern Europe after the Red Army moved in... Mr. de Zayas, who is 29 years old and has a fellowship at the University of Göttingen emphasized: ... 'I had taken a number of courses in history at Fordham and Harvard and this was just never mentioned. I don't think people outside Germany know much about it.' Truman, Churchill and Stalin agreed at Potsdam in 1945 that the German populations of Eastern Europe should undergo 'transfer to Germany' but 'in an orderly and humane manner'. The de Zayas book makes clear that the last provision was not fulfilled." Craig R. Whitney in the International Herald Tribune, 17 February 1977.

"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.

"Le livre de Dr. de Zayas se fonde sur une étude très approfondie des sources, notamment anglaises et americaines, ainsi que sur des interviews de l'auteur. Le livre donne une analyse très claire de la politique des puissances occidentales." Journal du Droit International

Here a handful of reviews of "A Terrible Revenge", which is a popularized version of "Nemesis at Potsdam". By the way, the book had two further editions and the 2006 edition with Palgrave/Macmillan does take into account a number of suggestions expressed in the reviews. Other reviewers found the book pretty good: "This is the story of the ethnic Germans who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some two million died and fifteen million were displaced - driven from their lands buy those opposed to anyone and everything German... De Zayas's moving plea is that one's home should be a human right. As frontiers once more shift in Eastern Europe and families flee in Bosnia, he could hardly have chosen a better moment to deliver it." Henry Stanhope in The Times, (London), 18 November 1993.

"De Zayas, a lawyer, historian and human rights expert specializing in refugees and minorities, has uncovered testimony in German and American archives detailing these atrocities, adding a new chapter to the annals of human cruelty. His carefully documented book serves as a reminder that many different peoples have been subjected to 'ethnic cleansing'". Publishers Weekly, July 1994.

"This book, aimed at the general public, presents in a nutshell the history of the ethnic German population which had settled in the early 12th century in large parts of what is nowadays Eastern Europe. De Zayas' book is written in a style reflecting his remarkable familiarity with German culture and history. The last chapter shows the reader that young West Germans born from resettled parents and who did not live the experiences described in a book, still manifest their attachment with their East Euoprean origins, which in turn shows that history can survive the principle of 'homo honini lupus'" Netherlands International Law Review, 1986, pp. 430-431.

"Atrocity begins with a euphemism. Under the rubric 'orderly population transfers' the victors of the Second World War drove 15 million Germans out of their ancient homes in an ethnic cleansing far worse than what is happening today in the Middle East or Bosnia Hercegovina. They were mainly women, old men and children, because all the other men were in allied prison camps. The lands, chiefly in Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia, were seized at gunpoint, many people beaten, many of the women raped, and then forced onto the road, some with an old nag and a cart, a few by rail, most on foot. They had little food and faint hope of getting any en route. In some transit camps in the Czechoslovak Sudetenland, half the refugees died in the first few weeks. the survivors faced a long trek to the West where they found counditions much like those they had left ... "The author conservatively takes the lowest available estimate of the deaths: over two million people died in the expulsions... Western historians have long averted their eyes from the stupendous crime autoritatively described by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas in this grim, essential book. The author has impeccable credentials for this work: a law degree from Harvard, a doctorate in history at Göttingen, mastery of five languages. He has worked in foreign archives and interviewed many survivors for this book, his fourth. For many years he has been a senior legal advisor on human rights to an international organization in Switzerland ..." Ottawa Citizen, 16 October 1993. "A graduate of Harvard Law School and member of the New York Bar, the author also studied in Germany as a Fulbright Scholar...This training and experience have uniquely qualified him to write this thoroughly researched work on the tragic forced expulsion of some 15 million Germans from their ancestral homelands in central and eastern Europe ... Of these expellees, two million perished during their trek westward....The author has given the history of these expulsions a dramatic immediacy through a series of eyewitness accounts ... the horrors will call to mind the current reports of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, demonstrating that little has been learned from the tragic history of the past". Col. Ernest Fischer, in ARMY, January 1996, pages 59-60.

By the way, there are articles in the Wikipedia on these books, and it is there that a discussion of the books should properly take place. Gancefort (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you take a look on the article now you will find actually e.g. the phrases «The book was savagely attacked in the media of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Notwithstanding criticism from a few historians in Germany (…)». This implicates, that every attack of the book – if it do not origin from Soviet Union - is performed by «its satellites». Because of the negative reception of de Zayas book by several historians (not only) in Germany (e.g. Benz), this implicates that very reputable Historians, which do not agree with de Zayas books are «satellites of the Soviet Union». I do not think that Wikipedia should broadcast such nonsense. The reception of reserach is a well established indicator for the importance and relevance of history research. And that was the first example I gave to you. Right, Eagle Glasheim – who, by the way do not belong to «few historians in Germany» – of course is reviewing a book by Detlef Brandes. And yes – this is part of the normal reception – negative or positive – he compares the work of Brandes with that of de Zayas. And his conclusion about de Zayas was «his book was nonetheless marred by a territorial revisionism that struck a tone more reminiscent of the interwar period than the age of European unity and Ostpolitik». Following Glasheim I would say that also the actual article is marred by phrases which remember me to slogans of the so called cold war.--KarlV (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, Karl. The problem with the expulsion of the Germans (the subject of two of de Zayas' books) is that de Zayas, as a human rights expert and activist, does consider the German expellees to be victims, as he considers the Armenians to be victims, or the Greek Cypriots, or the American indigenous. Some German historians do not consider them victims, and the recent articles in the Spiegel concerning the films on the sinking of the refugee ship Gustloff in January 1945 illustrates the general malaise in Germany -- an inability to mourn for one's own victims. As we know, de Zayas deals with the subject of the flight and expulsion of the Germans both from the legal and from the historical perspective, and publishes many previously unpublished archival sources and interviews with the key players including Robert Murphy (who wrote the preface of "Nemesis at Potsdam"), James Riddelberger, Sir Patrick Dean, Lord Strang, Sir Dennis Allen, Sir Geoffrey Harrison, etc. It is important to note that, unlike many other historians who stagnate, de Zayas has kept the books up-to-date, improving every edition up to and including the 14th edition of 2005 (very favourably reviewed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung).  Now, Wolfgang Benz is an expert on the Holocaust, but not an expert on the expulsion of the Germans.  Back in 1985 Benz edited a thin volume "Die Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten", which the Historische Zeitschrift, the foremost historical journal in Germany, entrusted to de Zayas for review (thus recognizing the special expertise of Mr. de Zayas in this field of research). The Historische Zeitschrift published the review by de Zayas in which the book of Benz comes out pretty badly -- as biased and poorly researched. See Historische Zeitschrift (Band 242 (1986) pp. 476-77). Be fair and recognize that the overwhelming majority of the reviews of de Zayas were positive -- and written by experts in the field, including Prof. Gotthold Rhode in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Professor Andreas Hillgruber in the Historische Zeitschrift, Professor Carl Anthon in the American Historical Review, Benjamin Ferencz in the American Journal of International Law, Prof. Dieter Fleck in Archiv des Völkerrechts.  One could easily add fifty positive reviews for the very few critical voices you bring. Even Glasheim does not criticize de Zayas for his methodology, but takes issue with the territorial question on the Oder-Neisse, reflecting the title of Chapter 9 of "Nemesis at Potsdam". In the 1977 edition of "Nemesis", de Zayas correctly reflected the views that German, Polish, American and British politicians expressed in the period 1945-77. In subsequent editions of "Nemesis" de Zayas rewrote this chapter in order to keep up-to-date with developments, including the de jure recognition of the Oder-Neisse by the German government. Thus Glasheim's criticism, which was based on the 1977 edition, has been overtaken by the subsequent editions. Please transfer this discussion to the article on "Nemesis at Potsdam" or to the article on "A Terrible Revenge".  This article should concentrate on the person de Zayas.  Gancefort (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well – fist of all – nobody denies that also expulsed Germans are victims. Secondly, I do not want to go deeper in the personal competition between de Zayas and Wolfgang Benz. Benz is not only an expert on the Holocaust. He is one of the most reputable Historians in the field of History for the period of 1933-1945. But, as you may know, in historical research you may have written a good book or an article but the best indicator for a reception is that your work is quoted. Here you have to differentiate in positive and negative reception (falsification). Now I would like to give you two examples of reception:


 * 1) In the book The Impact of Nazism: New Perspectives on the Third Reich and Its Legacy from Alan E. Steinweis and Daniel E. Rogers, University of Nebraska Press 2003, here pages 101/102 where the Authors refers and quoted both books of de Zayas and Benz: «Alfred de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Anglo-American and the Expulsion of the Germanic Background, Excecution, Consequences (…); De Zayas, Zeugnisse der Vertreibung mit bisher unveröffentlichten Bilddokumenten (…); De Zayas, Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten (…); and de Zayas, the German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (…). More balanced analyses appear in Wolfgang Benz, Die Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten: Ursachen, Ereignisse, Folgen (…).»


 * 2) In the book The Heimat Abroad: The Boundaries of Germanness from Krista O'Donnell, Renate Bridenthal and Nancy Ruth Reagin, University of Michigan 2005, on page 281, you find the same thing. Both, de Zayas and Benz, are quoted: «See e.g. Alfred M De Zayas, Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten (…); The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (…);Nemesis at Potsdam: The Anglo-American and the Expulsion of the Germanic Background, Excecution, Consequences (…); and Zeugnisse der Vertreibung mit bisher unveröffentlichten Bilddokumenten (…); for a more balanced account, see Wolfgang Benz, Die Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten: Ursachen, Ereignisse, Folgen (…).» And so I come back to our wikipedia article, where it seems, that the description of de Zayas work is also not balanced.--KarlV (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * KarlV, there you go again with a few weak references. In the 31 years since the publication of "Nemesis at Potsdam", no historian has identified errors in de Zayas. Some historians and journalists, however, do not like his conclusions, and prefer those of Benz, who is hardly a neutral historian, and whose focus of research is the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. In the field of expulsion and ethnic cleansing, de Zayas is a recognized authority, both as a lawyer and as an historian. He has written the relevant articles on this subject for the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, edited by Professor Rudolf Bernhardt, former President of the European Court of Human Rights (Elsevier, Amsterdam 2000), he also wrote the article "Vertriebene" in Professor Weidenfeld's Handwörterbuch zuzr deutschen Einheit (1992). On page 585 of the 2007 book "After the Reich", British historian Giles MacDonough writes "The best remains Alfred M. de Zayas' Nemesis at Potsdam". It is not without good reason that this book has reached 14 editions in Germany and 7 in the United States. The problem is not with de Zayas or with his books, the problem is that some historians and journalists still refuse to look at Germans as anything other than Täter/perpetrators. By the way, as many Wiki users have already noted, de Zayas has moved on. The expulsion of the Germans 1944-48 was an issue that occupied him in the 70s and 80s. Since then the focus of his activity has been human rights, extreme poverty, the right to peace, and his many publications on the Armenian genocide, on Cyprus, on Guantanamo, etc. are probably more important than his early work on German subjects.


 * I go for the reception of de Zayas work. I do not talk and do not claim that de Zayas had made errors. Where did I? I am talking about that his book - in the reception - is hotly debated, also because historians not only in Germany (as you can see my both examples) found it not balanced.--KarlV (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Karl, there is probably no book in the world that does not have some detractors. Everyone has a right to a point of view -- some like de Zayas, some less. And then there are historians of modern history who are more politicians than historians. Take Götz Aly or Wolfgang Benz, for instance. De Zayas does not belong in this category.  He is not a German and does not have any particular reason to be for or against the expellees. As you may have read in the introduction to "Nemesis at Potsdam", the original spark for the book was academic curiosity -- the desire to open a discussion on a subject that hitherto had been taboo. Even after seven editions of the English version of "Nemesis at Potsdam" and three editions of "A Terrible Revenge", even after many positive reviews (and a handful of critical ones) -- the subject matter remains practically unknown in the United States, Canada, Great Britain etc. It is not systematically taught in schools, and if you ask even professional historians about the expulsion of the Silesians, he is likely to look at you with a big question mark on his face.  Thus, what de Zayas did 31 years ago was to raise questions. It has taken a very long time for literature to take up the matter -- e.g. Gunther Grass' Crabwalk, or for television to get interested in it -- de Zayas was the historical advisor of the Discovery Channel documentary on the sinking of the Gustloff. But why continue this debate on this page?  Would it not be better to discuss the pros and cons on the article on "expulsion of the germans"? Besides, your focus is too limited. You are concerned with publications by de Zayas that came out 20 - 30 years ago. Have you bothered to read on his website about his activities on behalf of the indigenous of the United States? about the expelled Cypriots? About the Armenians? You keep harping on "Nemesis at Potsdam" -- pretty one-dimensional approach to the Wiki. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * «And then there are historians of modern history who are more politicians than historians.» Come on, show me one reputable source who is claiming that against Wolfgang Benz. This is your personal POV. Nothing else. It seems that the personal conflict between two historians (de Zayas versus Benz) is also source of this conflict here.--KarlV (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Caution! KarlV is a well-known Troll in de.WP. 83.135.213.101 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC) This is an edit from a socket puppet-IP who was blocked indefinitely because of continuous disturbance in the political sector (e.g. 167 Socket Puppets after 6 CUs).--KarlV (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no agreement ...
So I have extending the protection to allow for further discussion. I am glad to see both "sides" in discussion, and hope it continues. Neıl ☎  08:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Due to the attacks and aggressive discussions either in de:WP and here I am not so sure if IPs and others are interested in an agreement. And I disbelieve that aggressive IPs are interested in our collective project (doing e.g. allegations against user Giro who never had edited on en:WP). The fact that well published information like birthday and birthplace are deleted repeatedly is another indication that the purpose of such is manipulating the article. By the way, this is not a «inner-German quarrel », this is a serious wiki problem. --KarlV (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is indeed, which is why I'm trying to keep on top of the dispute, and treat both sides fairly. I hope if anyone does have a concern that I am being unfair that they will let me know. Neıl  ☎  10:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a qestion of letting truth out or leave it under the carpet. Usually, a human being is too curious to keep it as a secret forever....So be curious and let the truth into your life. Thanks. 91.16.117.18 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)CS


 * You are very right, CS. De Zayas has endeavoured to uncover historical events that had been taboo for decades. You can read in the preface to "Nemesis at Potsdam" that de Zayas knew nothing about this sad chapter of 20th century history, although he had studied history in high school, college and at the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. It was at Harvard Law School that he first heard of it -- from his international law Professor, Richard Baxter, who referred to it as the greatest demographic catastrophe of WWII. De Zayas was surprised that he had never heard the expulsion of some 15 million people from their 700-year old homelands, which prima facie constitutes a significant event worth studying and teaching. De Zayas then got a Fulbright, went to Germany, spent months in the archives, interviewed the victims, the witnesses, the Red Cross, the politicians and diplomats. The result was a book that was published by the highly reputable house Routledge in London and Boston and by the equally reputable C.H.Beck in Germany. In breaking the silence about this historical event, Zayas evidently angered those who had nurtured the taboo. Maybe surprisingly, the reviews in the 1970s and 80s were remarkably positive, with the exception of the Soviet press and of very few Western historians. In 30 years since publication of "Nemesis at Potsdam", no serious historian has challenged De Zayas' sources or his facts. What some people challenge is the evaluation of the events and de Zayas' conclusion that the expulsion of millions of people on the basis of "collective guilt" is immoral. The fact that the late US Ambassador Robert Murphy, former political advisor of Eisenhower and of Lucius Clay, endorsed the book with a foreword cannot be pushed aside by the weak criticisms of a Rainer Ohliger and of a Wolfgang Benz. Gancefort (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

EDIT SUGGESTION


 * Simply delete the sentence

"The book was savagely attacked in the media of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Notwithstanding criticism from a few historians in Germany, Nemesis at Potsdam and The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau were well-received in the academic community, are used in colleges and universities, and remain in print thirty years after their initial publication in the 14th and 7th revised and updated editions, respectively." It suffices to refer the Wiki-user to the respective articles on these books. It is obvious from the discussion above that the subject matter of three de Zayas books was and remains controversial -- "Nemesis at Potsdam", "A Terrible Revenge" and "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau". This Wiki-diskussion will not solve the disputes. As to the reception of the books, it cannot be denied that they have been best-sellers, reaching many editions. It is not uninteresting that the books are still in print 31 years, 22 years and 29 years after publication of the original versions in English and German. It is undisputed that the books had a considerable number of positive reviews in the scholarly press (American Journal of International Law, Archiv des Völkerrechts, Cambridge Law Journal) and in the serious newspapers (London Times, Times Educational Supplenent, Sunday Times, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, die Zeit, etc.), and that these reviews are not only old ones dating back to the 1970s and 80s, but also those of the newer editions in 2006. As to the continuous interest in the books, it is instructive to look at the customer reviews in Amazon.com: Nemesis 5 stars, Terrible revenge 4 1/2 stars, in Amazon.uk Terrible Revenge 5 stars, in Amazon.de Die Anglo-Amerikaner und die Vertreibung (German version of Nemesis) 5 stars, Wehrmacht Untersuchungsstelle 4 1/2 stars, Terrible Revenge 4 1/2 stars. Of course, there are historians who disagree with de Zayas, but it is significant that a critic of de Zayas, Professor Detlef Brandes, and de Zayas both contributed chapters to the German government's book "Flucht, Vertreibung, Integration" (2006), edited by the Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. It is equally significant that important sections of one of de Zayas' books, "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau" are reproduced in a teaching handbook of the International Committee of the Red Cross "How does War Protect in War" (1999, 2001, ISBN 2-88146-110-1) together with other top names in international law -- Lou Henkin, R. Jennings, H. Lauterpacht, Myers McDougal (see Acknowledgments, p. 7). This article, however, should endeavor to reflect the whole picture -- which is not de Zayas' publications on German history -- but also his United Nations career, his publications on the rights of peoples and minorities, on Guantanamo, on the Armenian genocide, etc. his 20-year membership in the Swiss PEN Club and his publications on Rilke and Hesse. The private web site of de Zayas contains much relevant information. Gancefort (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the defamatory nature of this bickering over Alfred de Zayas is beyond reason. This idle chat and therefore derogatory accusations and bickering needs to stop and subsequently this article needs to be protected, i would suggest indefinitely, but at least until the anti-German brigade get the message that this is not the place to slander Alfred de Zayas, nor the German people. Prof. Dr Alfred de Zayas is, amongst his other talents, a human rights lawyer and activist of a number of years standing. He has made a lasting mark in the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, for which he worked for more than 20 years. The majority of his publications centre around issues such as aggression, Guantanamo, forced population transfers, ethnic cleansing, the rights of minorities and the rights of indigenous peoples. As President of the Pen Club in Switzerland he is a published poet and essayist as well as a recognised Rilke and Hesse translator. His scholarly intellect is such that it exceeds the level of what the majority would be prepared to take on. That he is the first American author to address the issue of the expulsion of 15 million Germans at the end of World War II, a major demographic catastrophe that has been, and still is, ignored by the majority of American and British historians is only to be commended. It is noticeable that, in comparison to some other historians and authors, that his books are still in print, 30 years after publication of the first edition in 1977. Founder of the United Nations Society of Writers in 1989, which still exists 19 years later; the multi-lingual Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas is editor-in-chief of the United Nations literary journal “Ex Tempore”. To be recognised and accepted by those at the United Nations for his literary contributions should be recognition in itself. I have read the comments from KarlV, Giro and Schwalker and find that these inner-German quarrels should be in the English Wiki. They harp on about who is a victim and who is not – at least I understand that the article on Alfred de Zayas is not the place for such an argument – discuss things in the proper place, where incidentally I would be glad to discuss the issue in a civilised, mature manner. The comments from KarlV, Giro and Schwalker lead me to ask one thing – What have you done for society? What have you done for the oppressed, indeed what have you done for the benefit of others? Subsequently, the work of Alfred de Zayas should be commended, not tarnished and slandered as it has been by KarlV, Giro and Schwalker – learn the proper place for discussion and discuss it there.Douglas AJ Brough (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Karl, you cannot deny that the de Zayas book "Nemesis at Potsdam" has reached 14 editions, and that the latest edition was positively reviewed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung in 2006, Switzerland's most reputable - and netural - newspaper. You are wrong in your assessment of Wolfgang Benz, who is widely considered to be a historian of "political correctness". There are plenty of American, British, German historians who regularly rely on the work of de Zayas and cite him. Other Wiki users have already pointed at a considerable number of authors, including Norman Davis and Giles MacDonough, who refers to "Nemesis" as still "the best2 in the field. Indeed, if de Zayas were not THE authority on the issue of the expulsion of the Germans, the Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland would not have invited him to write the chapter "Vertreibung und Völkerrecht" for its book "Flucht, Vertreibung, Integration" (2006).   You are right that a few historians and journalists here and there prefer Benz over de Zayas, but this has to do with their political inclinations.  Ask yourself why it was that the issue of the expulsion of the Germans remained a taboo for so many decades.  It is party thanks to de Zayas, who broke the ice in 1977, that interest in the subject matter was rediscovered.  This has been noted in many reviews of his books and in the preface of Bundesminister a.D. Windelen to his book "Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung". You keep bringing a handful of rather weak sources to show that de Zayas is not an authority. If that were so, why would the Institut für Zeitgeschichte invite him to a panel together with Professor Anthony Nichols of Oxford and Professor Henri Soutou of the Sorbonne -- see the IfZ publication "Die Potsdamer Konferenz: 60 Jahre Danach" (2007)? Why would the Oxford Encyclopedia of Public International Law confide upon him the entry "Forced Population Tansfers"? But, I agree, there is still a lot of reluctance to accept the facts that de Zayas exposed in 1977 and updated in 14 editions through 2005. Dr. Raymond Lohne, Columbia College Chicago 98.226.69.122 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking in the net for an Easter meditation, I found an interesting essay on Christianity in the de Zayas site and spent over an hour on it. I then went on Wikipedia to learn some more and discovered this discussion. It seems to me that Gancefort, Brough and Lohne make sense. Just go on the net and you find de Zayas on the United Nations, on the millennium development goals, on human rights, on the right to peace, on the Luarca Declaration, on Guantanamo, Armenia, Cyprus, Rilke. Go on his site and you get an impression what he stands for. Wiki-users Karl and Schwalker seem obsessed with the second world war and with some books by de Zayas that, according to the reviews reproduced above, were generally well received. Even if there are negative reviews -- that is a matter for substantive articles on the war and not on the person. I get the impression that through their repeated entries they pretend to impose their point of view on everyone else. They go out of their way to find something negative on the guy. Why? I found his Easter meditation rather inspiring. Feliz Pascoa. Calouste85.244.28.13 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is totally obvious, that Mr. Prof. Dr. de Zayas is a human rights activist, a proactive human rights lawyer, who established new human rights - the human right to peace - and enforced human rights that were not in focus that much so far like the right to homeland. To build an antithesis to his achievements, built on a simple little little nonsense source, that makes Karlv, giro and Schwalker to nonsense-talker and cannot be taken serious. The only serious element in their ridiculous discussion here is the reputation that they are damaging- that should be taken serious bey Wikimedia. So please go on the website, you readers here, of Mr. de Zayas www.alfreddezayas.com and you will immediately have the impression he is a truth bringing person and a serious UN-human rights activist who wants a positive development of the human rights situation of human mankind and single human beings. 91.16.90.132 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)CS
 * during the 7th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, de Zayas participated together with delegates of UNESCO and the World Council of Churches on a Panel devoted to the right to development, on 7 March 2008 (reported in Horizons et Debats, Zurich, 10 March 2008, p. 3) and on a panel on the Iraq war on 19 March 2008 (reported in Zeit-Fragen, Zürich, 25 March 2008, p. 4). In its latest issue (4/2004, p. 21), the UN staff magazine "UN Special" reports on "Ex Tempore - Nouveau Numéro et Soirée littéraire", which de Zayas directs as founder of the UN Society of Writers and as editor-in-chief of Ex Tempore. As to his prior work on German issues, Professor James J. Weingartner, favourably footnotes de Zayas in his article "Americans, Germans, and War Crimes: Converging Narratives from 'the Good War'" in The Journal of American History Vol. 94 No. 4 March 2008, pps. 1164-1183. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is in desperate need of balance. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas is a hugely controversial figure because of his championing of Germans as victims of WWII.  Athena&#39;s daughter (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Athena's daughter


 * Dear Athena's daughter. Human rights apply to us all. We all share the same human dignity. This was affirmed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights when he spoke to the German expellees in 1995 and again in 2005.  You cannot dispute that a German peasant farmer in East Prussia or Pomerania who was expelled from the land where his or her ancestors lived for 700 years was a victim of grave injustice.  Multiply this by 15 million and you have a lot of accumulated injustice. You cannot deny that a woman who was raped 20 times by Soviet troops (see Norman Naimark, The Russians in Germany, Harvard Univesity Press, 1995) must be classified in the category of victims. An upper Silesian industrial worker or mine worker had nothing to do with politics and had zero influence on Hitler's criminal policies. Collective sanctions are prohibited under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Denying these victims the status of victims just because they are or were Germans is a form of racism.  Nothing else. De Zayas is not "hugely controversial". He is a distinguished professor of law, lecturer at Harvard, Oxford, Sorbonne, the former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee and currently the President of the Swiss PEN Club.  An Irish reader 84.203.178.18 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "You cannot dispute that a German peasant farmer in East Prussia or Pomerania who was expelled from the land where his or her ancestors lived for 700 years was a victim of grave injustice", No, but you CAN dispute whether the former large landowners who now cry for "justice", and who either increased their holdings at the expense of Polish farmers whose 700-year dead ancestors worked lands confiscated by the Nazis or profited from the use of slave labor, deserve anything. Particularly in Prussia, the so-called "peasant farmer" was a tenant farmer, not a freeholder, so that bogus appeal falls flat.


 * "Multiply this by 15 million and you have a lot of accumulated injustice." The 15 million figure is another reactionary myth well debunked elsewhere in Wiki. You're starting to look like a victim of your own propaganda.


 * "You cannot deny that a woman who was raped 20 times by Soviet troops (see Norman Naimark, The Russians in Germany, Harvard Univesity Press, 1995) must be classified in the category of victims." No less a victim than the Soviet woman raped 20 times by Germans during their unprovoked invasion of the USSR. Unfortunately, the Nazis in 1945 burned most of the records regarding their own bestialities (legally, this is called obstruction of justice, and goes a long way toward being circumstantial evidence of guilt), so Naimark can't include them in his books.


 * "An upper Silesian industrial worker or mine worker had nothing to do with politics and had zero influence on Hitler's criminal policies." Unfortunately for you, you have absolutely NO way of telling whether your hypothetical worker HAD "nothing to do with politics" OR "had zero influence on...[the Nazi party's (my addition, as blaming Hitler alone for -everything- went out of style about 20 years ago)]...criminal policies. After all, your hypothetical worker could JUST as readily been an enthusiastic member of the Party, in lockstep agreement with ALL of its policies.


 * "Collective sanctions are prohibited under the Hague and Geneva Conventions." LOL. Obviously, you are unacquainted with any aspect of official German policy regarding all nations invaded and explioted by Nazi Germany.


 * "Denying these victims the status of victims just because they are or were Germans is a form of racism." Exactly who advocated doing that? Or is this simply a straw-man argument to elicit sympathy and intimidate those who disagree with you with the implicit threat of being labeled "racist"?


 * "De Zayas is not 'hugely controversial'." Most contributors here have never said that HE was "hugely controversial". Rather, that the form his writings on WW II take is "hugely controversial", in that they take certain aspects of the war out of context, providing ammunition for souls of misguided or evil intent who seek to sanitize one side's activities and demonize the other's. They are helped immensely in this because, as de Zayas himself notes in passing, the Nazis burned the records of almost all investigations into criminal behavior on their own side, and only kept those records which helped bolster their propaganda dehumanizing those they attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.183.169 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP -- Let us agree to approach the subject matter from the human rights perspective, on the premise that a German victim has the same right to respect and compassion as a Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Jewish or Roma victim. The writings of de Zayas are not at all "hugely controversial" -- if they were, prominent personalities like US Ambassador Robert Murphy, Professor Howard Levie, Professor Charles Barber, Professor Dietrich Rauschning, Bundesminister Heinrich Windelen, would not have given their names and written prefaces for the books. If the methodology of de Zayas were a problem, his books would not have been positively reviewed in the American Journal of International Law, Cambridge Law Journal, Netherlands International Law Review, Revue Generade de Droit Internationale, Historische Zeitschrift, FAZ, Die Zeit, Spiegel, etc. If you go on the private site of de Zayas you will find a hundred or so reviews in the most respected scholarly journals and newspapers. Undoubtedly de Zayas did a service to scholarship by opening the discussion on two hitherto tabu subjects -- a)the expulsion of 15 million Germans (these are the statistics of the Statistisches Bundesamt in Wiesbaden and of Gerhard Reichling, die Deutschen Vertreibungsverluste) and b) the crimes committed by Allied soldiers against German soldiers and civilians. These are perfectly legitimate subjects of research and cannot be excluded from scholarly discourse -- surely not 63 years after the events! Denying these victims the status of victims just because they are German is surely a form of racism. By the way, if you ever take the trouble to read the books by de Zayas and not the rantings of the antifa cabale, you will confirm that de Zayas very much places the events in historical context. It is precisely the antifa cabale that does NOT want the historical context, but just a dogmatic black and white approach to history. But why do you only focus on his publications concerning Germany? De Zayas has just as important publications concerning the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee, the right of minorities and indigenous peoples, the genocide against the Armenians, the expulsion of the Greek Cypriots from northern Cyprus, the human right to peace, etc. You seem to have a very narrow perspective. 217.169.133.249 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cat request: admin
I'm sorting out categorys.... it would seem that this person covers specially Germany and Nazism in his works and so belongs in "Category:Nazi era scholars and writers".. the Fascist/Nazi one isn't a viable category and is been split to two separate ones. - Gennarous (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * De Zayas fits in a number of Wiki categories. He has written books on the second world war. But the bulk of his work is in the international law and human rights fields.  The International Service on Human Rights regularly reports on side events of the Human Rights Council, where de Zayas participates in many panels. Moreover, he is a noted Rilke and Hesse translator and President of the PEN Club in Switzerland. 84.203.178.18 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User Schwalker again deletes the comments of other Wiki users. This is inacceptable.

140.203.22.88 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wiki cannot rely on activist partisan organizations -- whether from the left or from the right -- as sources. Many Wiki users have already identified Blick nach Rechts as an extreme left wing outfit that goes back to the days of the German Democratic Republic and which far from supporting the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany is itself observed by the German "Verfassungsschutz" because of its links to extreme left wing groups, including those who engage in violence. If you google many of the authors who write in BNR you will confirm that these are a fringe group from the left. 140.203.22.88 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User Schwalker and others are deleting comments. That is not acceptable. This is not a Pippi Langstrumpf-topic, this is too serious to play with other human beings opinions and delete the truth. --91.16.110.237 (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Cs

HUMAN RIGHTS PARADIGM

In his books de Zayas proposes a new paradigm to approach social phenomena and aberrations such as racism, war and genocide. He frames the questions posed by Habermas and Nolte in a new way -- in the light of overarching principles of human rights, and he applies an inter-disciplinary approach to facilitate the understanding of historical events. He articulates his questions on the premise of the equal dignity of all victims -- and all belligerents -- whether Iraquis or Americans, Turks or Armenians, Greek or Turkish Cypriots, Palestinians or Israelis, Germans or Russians. He establishes causal relationships and puts them in larger historical context, rejecting simple answers. His books pose fundamental questions that challenge the black and white, good and bad paradigms of lesser historians. Of course, not everyone will agree with de Zayas, as not everyone agrees with Noam Chomsky. 140.203.22.134 (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IMMEDIATELY OPEN THE ARTICLE AGAIN AND DELETE THE WRONG INFORMATION
Please immediately unprotect the site again and delete the false information from the false source, which is not neutral. THe sources indicated are not serious nor are they true. Open the article, we live in democracies and not in dictatorships. These admins have too much power and they obviously abuse it. --91.16.110.237 (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)CS

Dear Neil, Schwalker has again deleted several contributions by other Wiki users. This is vandalism and should not be tolerated by Wiki. Schwalker has been deleting substantive and well documented comments, including editing proposals. Should he not be blocked -- at least for a few days? 84.203.178.18 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback of 91.16.79.95's edits
I have reverted 91.16.79.95's last two edits. The first removed an edit by Schwalker referring to an award. No explanation was given for this deletion so I restored the text. I have no opinion about the inclusion or deletion of this text. However, unexplained deletions of text are unacceptable.

The second of the two edits that I reverted deleted information about de Zayas having been born in Cuba. I know this has been a contentious issue in the past. I do not have a strong opinion on this issue. I reverted it because it came later than the first edit and it was easier to rollback than to revert the earlier edit.

In any event, both edits should be discussed here first.

Richard

Dear Richard, I have removed the "in Cuba" in the first line and redrafted the biography section and put the place of birth there. If I understand the discussion above, the edit by Schwalker referring to an award was a deliberate attempt to defame de Zayas by indirectly linking him with conservative circles in Germany. As is evident from the article, de Zayas has received a number of human rights and cultural awards in his career, and this ZFI in Ingolstadt seems to be a Catholic conservative group. What is inacceptable is Schwalker's repeated deletions of substantive material in the discussion, and his use of a highly controversial, political source (Blick nach Rechts), which English users of the Wiki do not know, but which has its origins in the German Democratic Republic's SED party, an organization that has been instrumentalized by the Social Democratic Party in Germany to attack primarily conservative CDU and CSU parlamentarians. This is an internal German dispute that should not spill over into the English language Wikipedia. As someone indicated above, the award was presented by Professor Alexander Demandt of the University of Berlin, one of the most distinguished German historians alive. 84.203.178.18 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

HUMAN RIGHTS PARADIGN -- A FEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONS


 * I like the idea of the human rights paradigm -- maybe it should be incorporated somewhere in the text. For those who follow UN developments, the name de Zayas comes up frequently in the human rights context, e.g. as permanent representative of the International Society for Human Rights before the UN Human Rights Council. The UN news service regularly reports on UN panels on which de Zayas participates, particularly those concerning the right to development, the millennium development goals, the human right to peace, disarmament, and the rights of migrant workers. The April 2008 issue of the staff magazine UN Special carries an article on page 33 on the publication of Number 18 of the UN literary journal "Ex Tempore", which de Zayas founded in 1989 and still serves as editor-in-chief. At the Salon du livre de Genève (30 April-4 May 2008)"Ex Tempore" was on exhibition at the stand of the United Nations on rue Balzac, and de Zayas himself signed his books at the stand of the Société genevoise des Ecrivains (Geneva Society of Writers), an organization of which he is a member. De Zayas'publications on the issue of the German WWII expellees must be seen from the human rights perspective, the same as his publications on the Armenian genocide, the expulsion of the Greek Cypriots by Turkey 1974, indefinite detention and Guantanamo. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The information is true and useful. --88.70.131.62 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)CS


 * The June 2008 issue of the Geneva journal "Diva International" carries an interesting editorial by Professor de Zayas -- "Human Rights in the New Millennium", pp. 4-5. http://www.divainternational.ch/spip.php?article314. On Wednesday 4 June 2008 de Zayas participated in a UN Panel on "Education and Human Rights" during the 8th session of the UN Human Rights Council, and on a UN-consultation on "The Right to Peace" on Friday 6 June. 217.169.133.249 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On Thursday 19 June de Zayas was again at an expert meeting in the Palais des Nations, participating on a UN panel focussing on discrimination and harassment of staff members.193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On 16 July de Zayas spoke before some 250 students in the great hall XVI of the Palais des Nations. The conference, organized by the World Federation of United Nations Associations, focused on UN-disarmament initiatives. 217.169.133.249 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On 26/27 July de Zayas traveled to Geislingen an der Steige (Württemberg, Germany) to receive the Kulturpreis of the City from the hands of its mayor, Wolfgang Amann, and in the presence of the Ministerpräsident of Baden-Württemberg Oettinger. The ceremony was attended by the local press and filmed by Südwestfunk. The cultural prize was awarded in connection with de Zayas' research on and tanslations of Rainer Maria Rilke and Hermann Hesse.217.169.133.249 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On 18 September de Zayas participated on a panel on Depleted Uranium at a side event to the 9th session of the Human Rights Council. On 19 September, International Day of Peace, de Zayas was on a panel organized by Earth Focus on "Peace and Sustainable Development" and participated in the ceremony in the Salle du Conseil in the Palais des Nations, which was opened with the Peace message by Sec-Gen. Ban Ki-Moon, live from New York.217.169.133.249 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * De Zayas is generally recognized as an expert in international law matters. He has 18 entries in the Bernhardt Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, 6 entries in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Human Rights, 4 entries in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Genocide, one entry in the Kluwer Concise Encyclopedia of the United Nations, etc. The new Oxford Encyclopedia of International Law (2008), edited by Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum of the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, is now going online in installments, beginning September 2008.  Thus far two articles by de Zayas are there -- "Forced Population Transfer" and "Repatriation".  See http://www.mpil.de/ww/en/pub/research/details/publications/institute/epil.cfm  193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On 5 October 2008 de Zayas organised a Mahmoud Darwish Memorial Lecture in Geneva, hosted by PEN International, Centre Suisse Romand, and by the United Nations Society of Writers. As reported in the press, 31 persons attended the event, including Abdel Wahed Hani, the UN permanent representative of the Arab Commission on Human Rights. Darwish, the foremost Palestinian poet, died on 9 August 2008 after open heart surgery in Houston, Texas. De Zayas' new book "50 Thesen zur Vertreibung" has been favourably reviewed in the Rheinischer Merkur of 18 September 2008.  http://www.merkur.de/2008_38_pb_zayas.30216.0.html?&no_cache=1#193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For de Zayas on the right to peace at the UN see

http://www.wfuna.org/atf/cf/%7B84F00800-D85E-4952-9E61-D991E657A458%7D/HRS_REPORT_2008_final.pdf 217.169.133.249 (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Oxford on-line Encyclopedia of Public International Law just uploaded the interesting de Zayas entry on the "Spanish Civil War" http://www.mpepil.com/ 217.169.133.249 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The 3 Swiss P.E.N. Clubs which de Zayas coordinates commemorated "Writers in Prison Day" from 13 to 16 November in Geneva, Lugano and Zürich. Readings in Arabic and French of the poetry of two Iraqui poets -- Ali Al-Shalah and Khazal Al-Majidi -- were held and favourably commented in the Swiss press. The yearly event implements P.E.N.'s commitment under the Pen Charter to engage "en tout temps de leur influence en faveur de la bonne entente et du respect mutuel des peuples; ils s'engagent à faire tout ler possible pour écarter les haines de races, de classes et de nations, et pour répandre l'idéal d'une humanité vivant en paix dans un monde uni."

217.169.133.249 (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

DE ZAYAS NEW PUBLICATION: 50 Thesen zur Vertreibung [engl.:50 thesis regarding the expulsion]
I read the new publication of Mr. de Zayas "50 Thesen zur Vertreibung" from this May 2008 and appraise it as a great gain for every reader, every student of history or historian and for media and especially it is a felicitious format for pupils at schools. It should be used by teachers in every school. Very helpful and easy to make a class test from. It can be obtained from Verlag Inspiration by indicationg the ISBN Number 978-3-9812110-0-9. --> See website http://www.verlag-inspiration.de/ 213.39.161.157 (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)CS


 * Update -- the December issue of the UN magazine UN Special (11,000 copies for the Geneva staff) brings de Zayas' article on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pp. 10^-12. On 17 December Zayas represented the Spanish Association for the Advancement of International Human Rights Law at the UN consultation held at the Palais Wilson, hosted by the UN Working Group on Mercenaries. He made the link between promoting a culture of peace, eliminating impunity for gross human rights violations and banning the use of private military companies, e.g. in Iraq. War should be abolished, not privatized! On 13 December Zayas spoke the Laudatio to Dr. Marianne Bouvier at the ceremony conferring upon her the human rights award of the Volksgruppe der Donauschwaben. On 15 December the Stuttgarter Nachrichten reported favourably and extensively. On 9-10 December 2008 the Institut Pierre Werner in Luxembourg, the Instituto Internazionale Jacques Maritain, Rome, and the University of Luxembourg held a conference focusing on new approaches to contemporary human rights issues.  Zayas spoke on "the universal system of Protection of Human Rights" and elaborated on a new human rights paradigm where enabling rights like the right to peace play a central role. 217.169.133.249 (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the "Thesen"-- thought provoking. Recently I discovered the online Zayas entry "Forced Population Transfer" in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2008) -- the best analysis of the subject matter I know. Both titles could be added to the bibliography. -- A student at Leiden University 86.80.65.186 (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Human rights paradigm
The UN Special (monthly staff magazine of the UN in Geneva, 11,000 run) brings an interesting analysis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by de Zayas (60 Ans Declaration universelle des droits de l'homme, pp. 10-12, http://www.unspecial.org/UNS679/t24.html) and the January issue an article on the United Nations Society of Writers, in which the vocation of writers as peace makers is elaborated (p. 10). The AdeZ entry in the Wikipedia could reflect more his well publicized human rights lectures at the UN. JanHus03 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On the occasion of Barak Obama's Inauguration on 20 January, Alfred de Zayas participated on a radio panel discussion in which he stressed that human rights should be the hallmark of the new administration, that not only the prisons in Guantanamo base should be closed, but Guantanamo Bay itself should be returned to Cuba as a gesture of good will. The US has militarily occupied Guantanamo Bay since 1898 and imposed a lease agreement on Cuba, which since 1959 Cuba has called a vestige of colonialism and insisted before the United Nations that it be returned to Cuban sovereignty. Other points on the human rights agenda of the first 100 days would be the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (only two countries in the world have thus far not ratified this important convention -- the U.S. and Somalia). These measures would send a good signal to the world, and maybe the U.S. could then take its place as an elected member of the UN Human Rights Council (it has not participated since 2006). The financial crisis and the economy are not everything -- taking international law seriously and implementing human rights in good faith will reestablish the image of the United States. The Radio Cite (Geneva) interview was quite informative.JanHus03 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please update entry -- Since January 2009 de Zayas is no longer treasurer -- but president -- of the Geneva non-governmental organization "Millennium Solidarity", an organization that works toward the implementation of the millennium development goals. http://www.millennium-solidarity.net/193.239.220.249 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. But you could have done this yourself. --Richard (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LARENOPFER
The second, revised and enlarged edition of de Zayas' Rilke translations "Larenopfer" (Red Hen Press, Los Angeles 2008) brings a perceptive new preface by Professor Ralph Freedman, the famous Rilke biographer. The new book of George C. Schoolfield "Young Rilke and his Time, Camden House 2009" refers favourably to de Zayas' pioneering translation.217.169.133.249 (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On 26 July 2008 de Zayas was awarded the Kulturpreis der Stadt Geislingen (Germany) for his Rilke and Hesse translations. the event was attended by the Minister of Culture of Baden Wuerttemberg Rech and by the Governor of BW Oettinger. See Geislinger Zeitung, 28 July 2008.


 * editsemiprotected Immerhinque (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may also want to add the article in the January 2009 issue of the UN Special (staff magazine of the UN in Geneva, 11,000 run) http://www.unspecial.org/UNS680/t24.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.220.249 (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--Aervanath (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to add a reference to recent publications: In May 2009 the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public Interntional Law (Oxford online) uploaded his article on "Guantanamo Naval Base". http://www.mpepil.com/subscriber_article?script=yes&id=/epil/entries/law-9780199231690-e301&recno=2&author=de%20Zayas%20%20Alfred

On 3 June 2009 de Zayas was on an expert UN panel in room XXII of the Palais des Nations discussing "Migration and Peace" - he presented a paper on "codification of the human right to peace as a tool to eliminate discrimination against migrant workers". He shared the panel with two UN Special Rapporteurs. On 5 June in room XXV he participated on a consultation on the Human Right to Peace. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

German wikipedia
I am very pleased with the fact, that the English Wikipedia is not "vandalized" by -especially- two certain Persons who already have refused to reveal their identity. They continual diffame Mr. de Zayas in a terrific way, both formal and in respect of contents. If anyone could help me and Alfred de Zayas to STOP these both "individuums" who obviously have gone astray or who are criminals, please call me or contact me otherwise. Thank you all, no matter in which country in the world you are living, who know Alfred de Zayas as a real competent and good, warmhearted and fascinating man or even as a real friend as I do since innumerable years. God bless you.--Gunther Marko (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked the article in the German Wiki -- indeed there is an "edit war" going on, with two individuals constantly putting in wrong information, which in turn is disproved by other wiki-Lesers, but the guys come right back with their persistent libel. Funny that they do not get blocked by the Administrators. The English Wiki may need protection if they try to sabotage this article. The article in the French Wiki is fine. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the German article and it is not true what you are telling here. It seems that the article is under exertion of influence by "friends of de Zayas". They are trying to keep out information about him in an aggressive manner including insults like this both you can read above.--77.25.40.39 (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Beg to disagree with contributor 77.25.40.39. The German Wiki article included in 2007 totally wrong information and libelous material introduced by vandals. There was a "wikirage" in the discussion pages (some 90 pages worth, all by now in the archives) which resulted in the protection of the article and removal of the false information by the Administrators. No sooner was the protection lifted that vandals again went to work, and the article had to be protected. I just checked the article in the German wiki and right now it appears reasonably O.K., although it still includes reference to a footnote in an article by a GDR-prosecutor criticizing -- with demonstrably false sources -- one of de Zayas' books.  The problem with the article is not the exertion of influences by "friends of de Zayas".  The problem is that a group of German Wikipedians want to conduct their debate on German issues and misuse the de Zayas article as a medium for this purpose. There is no problem whatever with well founded criticism, provided that the article is not instrumentalized into an internal German debate. De Zayas is a respected UN expert and human rights activist. It is bizarre that when he writes about the human rights of indigenous peoples, minorities, victims of racial discrimination, human trafficking, about the Armenians, the Cypriots etc. he survives it well; but in some circles in Germany, if he writes in the foremost German newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, about German victims during and after world war II, he is attacked for violating the artificial perpetrator/victim dichotomy -- as if there could be no German victims of Allied air bombardment or no German victims among the 15 million expellees from East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, etc. There is something very unsound in the reasoning of several German Wikipedians and it would be regrettable if they were to try to hijack the englisch Wiki article for their own political purposes. Immerhinque (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Die von KarlV zitierten Meinungen von Kott und Keil sind verleumderisch. Die Etiketten "rechts" und "rechtsextrem" werden in Deutschland inzwischen so gebraucht, dass sie bedeutungslos geworden sind.  De Zayas ist weder rechts noch links.  De Zayas ist ein "renommierte UN-Experte" und Menschenrechtsaktivist, der sich für alle Opfer einsetzt -- ob Armenier, Zyprioten oder Deutsche. Das Buch von Goldhagen wurde von der Mehrheit der Historiker als schlecht recherchiert abgelehnt. Dabei war der FAZ-Verriss von Goldhagens Buch durch de Zayas vollkommen berechtigt.  Die Tatsachen, dass de Zayas 2009 als "fremde Feder" für die FAZ schreibt, bei Oxford und Macmillan publiziert und als Experte bei UN-Panelen auftritt, beweisen, dass er über Etiketten erhaben ist.67.188.62.146 (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just read the above text in German -- it refers to the on-going debate in the article in the German Wiki and argues that labels such as "right" or "left" are not very meaningful, points out that Zayas is a human rights activist and that he advocates the rights of the unsung victims. It refers to the negative book review that de Zayas wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on the thesis of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and indicates that other reviewers have been similarly critical of the methodology used by Goldhagen. Other recent entries in the German wiki make the point that de Zayas is in the tradition of left wingers like Victor Gollancz, Bertrand Russell and Noam Chomsky who defend the rights of all victims of injustice, regardless of national origin. Interesting point. Immerhinque (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate in the German Wikipedia is ridiculous, obviously some communist trolls have been trolling around at the German article. Similar behaviour here would be acted firmly against. Daniel Goldhagen is a right-wing extremist and racist, and is not taken seriously in the academic community, btw., so Zayas' view on Goldhagen is completely mainstream. Mrandsl (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Nazi era scholars and writers"?
I suppose this category refer to his work on ethnic cleansing of East European Germans. As this ethnic cleansing both to a large degree took place after the National Socialist rule ended, and as the perpetrators were the Stalinists, I think "Stalinism era scholars and writers" would be much more appropriate. The fact that it happened to be partially in the same period as the Nazi era seems less important, as this was stalinist policy. Mrandsl (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945
The masterpiece - The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945 and its Talk page. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

the event was attended by the Minister of Culture of Baden Wuerttemberg Rech and by the Governor of BW Oettinger
This is a Wikipedia, not a society chronicle.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody disagrees with you Xx236 on the issue of a society chronicle. But it is not unsignificant that the Governor or Baden Wuerttemberg and the Culture Minister attended the award ceremony for Zayas. Of course it can be deleted, if you wish. The article is already pretty long. However, as to KarlV, there is no dispute to be resolved here and no justification for the POV or neutrality warnings. Indeed, there are few Wikipedia articles with as many solid sources and footnotes as this one. See also the French and Spanish wiki articles on Zayas. As far as the mention of Wolfgang Benz -- well, he is among the minority of German historians who feel uncomfortable with the subject matter of the expulsion of the Germans after WWII and who dislikes the fact that de Zayas has written about it objectively without making concessions to the Zeitgeist. As has been noted above, the 14th revised edition of Die Nemesis von Potsdam had a brilliant review in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, with which KarlV probably disagrees. But such a discussion should be carried out in the wiki article "expulsion of Germans" and not here. I thoroughly agree with the comment made by 81.63.100.17. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, you guys shoot fast! The message "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary" -- was complied with.  I did explain the removal of "warnings" that have no justification.  It is incumbent on the person who adds the warning to explain why he is adding the warning. The comments of KarlV and Xx236 do not justify it at all.193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no justification for the POV or the neutrality warning. This article is well written and has more footnotes than I can count! Whoever has a problem with it should first justify himself on the discussion page.Raymond Lohne, Ph.D., Columbia College Chicago67.184.223.103 (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dr. Lohne. These labels seem to be an indirect way of questioning the credibility of Professor de Zayas. As a senior lawyer with the UN and author of recognized scholarly handbooks, de Zayas enjoys an impecable reputation. Therefore the POV and neutrality labels in this article seem out of place. I have also added a most interesting document I found on the law/history section of the Zayas website - the final report on the project of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft that he directed 1975-79 in Göttingen. Fascinating and full of information that is not in the article yet. The report is, of course, in German. http://www.alfreddezayas.com/Law_history/dfgschlussbericht 85.0.19.214 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)