Talk:Edgar Ansel Mowrer

Untitled
What are these sentences supposed to mean?

"The German people however knew that Russia had been subject to German invasion after her defeat whereas in 1918 German soldiery were everywhere placed on foreign soil when its commanders petitioned for peace."

"Germany was prey to continuous partisan and political Insurrection as well as pressure from Belgium and France."

"A new army and the Radical Right combined and fought against Poles, Communists and Left Socialists and against the self-same new Weimar Republic."

The following is incorrect:

"In result the unrepentant nationalists created the legend that an undefeated Germany had been felled by a revolutionary dagger thrust at home."

No, leading military figures invented the "dagger thrust legend" immediately after the war, when they were questioned on the responsibility for the defeat. No need for partisan attacks, of which I never heard of. Str1977 15:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

These are Mowrer views, minimally trans-iterated  to avoid copyright. I put up this article to avoid nation based, political and faith-based POV /NPOV which was sullying the wikiP. I do not intend here to have to defend these views of Mowrer's and fight for every inch. why don't you get real and actually face the questions, face that book  Kenny alluded to, add helpful  rather than hindering comment on pages. I note you are still carrying on your efforts to minimise all this scandal and to prevent any advance. Which is of itself interesting.

If you wish to censor history I think you succeed quite well, but Mowrer's views are his own , and  are as I say Witness POV. it makes it difficult that you say you are not a specialist or knowledgeable about the Concordat events, but that does not stop you from wielding your mental axe. Would'nt it be wonderful to have you on the other side, what is still called the side of the angels. Fiamekeeper 12:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I never wished to censor history, but only focus discussion and avoid slander. I'm not a specialist in these particular events in all detail, but I am a historian. I sincerely hope I am on the side of the the angels, but how about you? As for my post above: I just asked questions about sentence I did not understand and/or which seemed a bit doubtful. If what you wrote is EAM's portrayal of the "dagger thrust" your post is o.k. - then the error lies with EAM. Str1977 16:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Purpose is to discredit Mowrer-of course. Logical .Fiamekeeper 18:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Dagger Thrust
Oh FK, you are seeing ghosts lurking everywhere, don't you?

(Though I probably could have put it clearer)

Purpose was to clarify that I think the sentence in question, in the way it was written in the entry, wrong. Here is the sentence as it stands:

"Germany was prey to continuous partisan and political Insurrection as well as pressure from Belgium and France. In result the unrepentant nationalists created the legend that an undefeated Germany had been felled by a revolutionary dagger thrust at home."

Now the thing is, that Hindenburg and Ludendorff created the "dagger thrust" legend not for the reasons given above. The were questioned by a parliamentary comitee and probably tried to wash the odium of defeat off themselves. After all, that was the reason for Ludendorff resigning from office late in the war, the reason for leaving the signing of the armistice to the new, parliamentary government. Also, politically Ludendorff definitely had an interest to blame the defeat on the Republic.

Now, these are the facts, at least as far as I know them.

They are in conflict with the given sentence.

This is either due to you misreading Mowrer or Mowrer getting the facts mixed up in some way.

I don't know.

You know the author - and his book. I don't. I suggest you check this again.

If it is the author's mistake, the thing can stay in there, though maybe with a disclaimer (or forms like Mowrer reports - I guess that's what the entry should be about, not Hindenburg (note the hint)).

Anyway, no reason to make such a fuss and speculate about my motives.

PS: I don't use talk pages to discredit anyone, let alone people I don't know. Others might. I don't.

Str1977 18:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * On another of our battle sectors you do, naming John Cornwell and suggesting a downer on Mowrer. You may be right to partake of the concerted world-wide attack on Cornwell's historical and personal  integrity, and you may or may not share in the essentially Catholic revisionist analysis of his work in the Vatican Archives -all I can say is what I see you knocking out . What particularly irks you is my backing up Cornwell from a completely new direction. Its a bore repairing the WP-everywhere there are sentences which are just faintly non-English in both text and thought  . I refer you to the Appeasement page and supposed coverage of Versailles etc. The thinking there seems to me to be not only German , but contemporary poltically revised , German . And the reason could be no more  than that  welcome exuberance of the German academia towards the English WP as well as the Deutsch WP.


 * As far as is easily apparent in cyberspace, Cornwell is attacked for one or several minor mistakes , very loudly . He is viciously discredited for what appear to be minor and meaningless , perhaps , editorial confusions.


 * EAM was a journalist and writes for maximum impact to a maximum audience . Indeed I shall check his exact words and I shall indeed substitute back an original quote . Keep watching and, understanding this to be a both contemporary journalism as well as his , EAM's , hindsight , let's see if it does not achieve the illumination  EAM sought to provide  . He is hard bitten and pulls no punches and the world needs  such .  Yes , lets co-operate.


 * Dagger text = ".............German reactions, both individual and collective, [seemed] sui generis.


 * Which was exactly what many Germans felt themselves to be, especially after their still unimaginable defeat in 1918 . To them the years of disappointment, trial and never-ending crisis seemed like a lunatic's dream.


 * In 1918 the military leaders who had, to the last ,fed the Germans a diet of victory talk , suddenly ordered them to overthrow the august House of Hohenzollern and create a republic which few of them wanted.


 * Most expected a 'negotiated settlement' and instead found themselves facing at Versailles a diktat on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, long after any possibility of their reopening hostilities  had disappeared .That this diktat was less severe than than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk , which they themselves had imposed on Russia the previous year ,meant little . For Russia had been defeated  and physically invaded while germany had sued for peace while its soldiers were still everywhere on foreign soil . Unlike Wilson , Kaiser Wilhelm  had never talked of a peace without victors or vanquished ....How compare the two treaties ?


 * As if military defeat, with the loss of over six million in killed and wounded , was not bad enough , a people with a mania for "quiet and order" found themselves to years of bloody insurrections,unceasing disturbance, and pressure from France and Belgium.


 * As a result, unrepentant nationalists successfully launched the legend that unbeaten Germany was betrayed by a revolutionary "dagger thrust" at home . This encouraged Right radicals and the "new" Army to organise armed bands which fought not only Poles , Communists , and left Socialists but against the new Republic as well . In fact Oswald Spengler, that strange hybrid of historical seer and German jingo , had already announced that the Weimar Constitution was doomed . "

Famekeeper 10:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Split
This article should be mainly about Edgar Ansel Mowrer, not 90% filled by a discussion about a book he wrote. Intangible 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. This article was created by a user, now banned for his disruptive behaviour, to prove a point. I don't think the book is that well known that we actually need an article on the book or a presentation chapter by chapter of its contents. Even the user in question hasn't persisted in this project. Above you can see how he refused to answer questions on this. Str1977 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism in article
The exact phrase about the reported looking under the patina. Is either word for word a copy of Erik Lawsons book on US diplomat Dodd. Or both authors plagiarized from the same source. Wording should be change or source cited on subjects time in Nazi Germany. Meemsworldwide (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)