Talk:Helmut Krausnick

Quote
I felt the original quote is better suited for this article as it addresssed Krausnick's work. This one is general and probably better suited for the Clean Wehrmacht article:

"Apart from the actual history of the persecution of the Jews and the ignored role of the judicial system as an instrument of terror, the most scandalous example certainly was the outrageous disregard of the Wehrmacht's participation in the murder of Jews in Eastern Europe, although this had already been established as fact by the Nuremberg Trials and remained lodged in historical consciousness outside of Germany. Within Germany, however, from the start of the 1950s, military circles (the so-called soldatische Kreise) were so effective in suppressing this information that it was not until the early 1980s that historiographers could begin to expose their involvement, which even at that stage still met with storms of protest."

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The so-called "original quote" you believe to be "better suited", is only a footnote out of the main body text. It also makes a very shallow résumé, that fails to mention the "soldatische-kreise", lobby groups such as HIAG, that effectively influenced the Bundeswehr and undermined the constitution of the West German government in processing of its "Vergangenheitsbewältigung." Zaetitia (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's the quote in question:


 * "On the basis of a thorough analysis of the cooperation between the Wehrmacht and the Einsatzgruppen, Krausnick asserts 'a far-reaching integration—appalling in its extent—of the Army into the program of destruction and into Hitler’s policy of annihilation'. Not surprisingly, this pioneering work became the object of ugly and ignorant criticism, even from within the Bundeswehr."


 * Yes, it comes from a footnote, but I don't think it's relevant. The second quote addresses Krausnick's work directly: "thorough analysis"; "pioneering work"; "object of (...) ignorant criticism". The first quote ("scandalous example"; "military circles"; etc.) is about the myth of the clean Wehrmacht in general and does not provide a biographically relevant assessment of Krausnick's contributions.


 * Could you elaborate on the concerns about the quote? What about putting the first quote into the Clean Wehrmacht article? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * How can the author's highly opinionated two-lined footnote comment, being of scholarly significance or relevance? If you want to cite a general book recension, H-Soz-Kult is certainly the place to start with. I wouldn't take the footnote comment for granted. Instead, by stating "Norbert Frei regarded Helmut Krausnick's work as one of the "pioneering work[s]" to challenge the myth, and was at the time a matter of controversial discussion" should be sufficient. A widespread criticism didn't gain much public and media traction until the 1986/87 "Historikerstreit" and the subsequent 1995' exhibition-tour Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944 in Hamburg, Postdam, Stuttgart and other places. I find Norbert Frei's fixation of simply one book, irritating and deceptive. Christian Streit's Keine Kameraden. Die Wehrmacht und die sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen 1941-1945 (1978), or Streim, Alfred's Sowjetische Gefangene in Hitlers Vernichtungskrieg. Berichte und Dokumente 1941-1945, (thesis 1979, hardprint 1982) are much of a"pioneering work" and "thorough analysis" in contributing to the debunking of the "clean Wehrmacht legend", as is Helmut Krausnick's work.


 * Claudia Schneider, Ende der Legende der sauberen Wehrmacht? Reaktionen auf die Ausstellung Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944 (2003) p.18: notes:


 * "Die Studien von Streit und Streim haben endgültig bewiesen, daß das Bild von der „sauberen Wehrmacht“ in den frühen 80er Jahren nicht mehr haltbar war und revidiert werden mußte. Die bereits von Streit festgestellte enge Zusammenarbeit zwischen Wehrmacht und den Einsatztruppen unmittelbar hinter der Front bestätigte außerdem die ausführliche Studie von Krausnick und Wilhelm von 1981. The studies by Streit and Streim have definitively proved that the image of a 'clean Wehrmacht' in the early 1980s was no longer sustainable and had to be revised. Streit already established [in his work, that] a close cooperation between Wehrmacht and the Einsatztruppen [in war crimes] immediately behind the frontlines [rear operations - occured], [and] which was affirmed by the detailed Studies from Krausnick and Wilhelm in 1981."


 * Geneally speaking, Claudia Schneider is one of the few recent historian that actually analyse the foundation in realities of the distant past, the impact on the wider society's mindset and its socio-economic/political consequences. IMHO, ideally suited to the Clean Wehrmacht article, that certainly needed to be more extended and rephrased; some inaccuracies here and there. Zaetitia (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the original quote can be rephrased. However, it's still unclear to me what purpose the other quote serve ("Apart from the actual history...") since it does not address Krausnick's contributions directly. Someone looking at the quote in the context of this article could say: It's WP:COAT-rack or It does not belong. Can you help me understand the rationale behind including it? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)