Talk:Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof

Reception Section
I've made a minor change to the reception section to remove some text which the quoted articles didn't justify and instead, describe what de Welt article actually said. This is because the Die Welt article didn't call the book “myth-creating” and “abstruse” and in any case, the use of quotes for single words is inappropriate when translating from one language to another, the translated word rarely has the exact connotations of the original. That is not my main objection to the original however. The Die Welt article neither called the book myth-creating nor abstruse, it merely criticized Schultze-Rhonhof questioning the Hossbach memorandum evidence as presented at Nuremburg - even though Schultze-Rhonhof sets out the reasons why the Nuremburg text may be inaccurate.

Untitled
Who wrote this nonsense? Why didn't you try to be objective in your view? Did you read the book you are writing about?

I think this article is written by one of the thousands of Germans, who belong to the todays left-wing. For them is everything that seems to be a different or a critical view on their 68'-post-war-fairy-tale-historiography (the left is always right - the right is always wrong): unscientific, revisionistic or something-like-this stuff. Boring.

I hope, that everybody who is interested in the breakout of the WWII will read Churchill's book about this theme. If you are able to read the German language, read the original book of Schultze-Rhonhoff. You will see, that this is a different view, but not revisionistic. The war guilt of Germany isn't negotiated - but in that time there were more actors than only Germany. With interests, power, influence - also acting. This book explains very well, how this war breaked out. This was more than: "Hitler=bad, the others? Good!" For the same people in Germany is: "US=bad (US Forces=even bader, George W.=the badest). The rest=good (specially the "poor" Irak - under Saddam's dictatorship! - A victim of US-imperealism." (So they think and say - all over Europe.) Or: the "poor" Soviet Union under Stalin's dictatorship. Nobody of them is able to remind, that the USSR began the WWII in nearly the same time - they attacked Poland, too, or earlier - they attacked Finland before! - as Germany did. Poland was the only country that attacked(!) every(!) neighbor (inclusive Germany) after its rebirth through the Treaty of Berst-Litowsk. It was Germany, that ends the imperealism of Russian Empire and let the nations of eastern europe in their own souvereignity and freedom. Poland asked - in the short time before outbreak of WWII - three times (or five times after the end of WWI) if France would like to attack Germany with them. Maybe this could be an aspect. Also the fact that thousand of Jews, Belorussians, Germans, and other nations got killed. In the beginning of the war Germany were a bad area for Jews - hundrethousands left it, as everybody knows. But Poland was even bader: the double number of Jews who emigrated out of Germany (maybe to the US) immigrated to(!) Germany. Millions of people flee out of Poland. Maybe this is an another aspect. (Why should Germany watch thousands Germans dying in the neighbour country?)

The specific problem in Germany is the cultural and political dominance of the left wing. It is nearly impossible to write a critical book about this theme, because it could end the fairy tale, that only the left wing is able to prevent Germany for another war. And that is the basis of their todays power in Germany. Peace, peace, peace. That means no more wars - everytime, everywhere. The oposite if war is everything that includes militairy power. In their eyes German Forces should leave Afghanistan,Kosovo and should end all militairy support of the US in the crisis regions in the world. In their eyes: America is guilty for all the terrorism, violence, poverty, hunger in the world. This follows the same arguments as they use to fight back the modern German conservatives.


 * I have to correct you on this. Of course his books are revisionistic. Any good history book is, because one needs to challenge paradigmas from time to time. --196.215.196.54 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources?
And who are you, i.e. "who wrote this nonsense? And on which sources do your ramblings rely? --141.53.182.214 (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rassinier
Oops, but Paul Rassinier is hardly on the "extreme right". --196.215.196.54 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lecture
There is a lecture by this person http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvwb5QPrmc0. I think it should be included in the article. --41.151.248.91 (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@Untitled
Somehow I assume it's not really important to reply to your lengthy comment as it seems to be more than 3 years. I can only shake my head in disbelief. You complain about others not being objective and being politically motivated (esp. the author of this article)? Are you aware that you use exactly the same strategies in your post that you accuse others of using? That looks a lot like hypocrisy.

As someone living in Germany I completely disagree with your comments regarding the political left dominating public discourse and "fairy tales". The purpose of such an article is to describe the topic, in this case a person, in a neutral way, not to read Schultze Rhonhofs book and post a review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.204.46.131 (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)