Talk:Horst Boog

'Far-right' newspaper Junge Freiheit
So far as I can see from the references on the article page, Junge Freiheit is described as conservative and nationalist, and right-wing, but "far-right"? Perhaps a citation for this would be appropriate, or a change to right-wing? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I made an edit to the main article per the source provided, and then adjusted Boog's article. Whoever added the original wording to the JF's article had a pretty generous read on the JF's positions. The paper is discussed in detail here: Antisemitism and Xenophobia in Germany after Unification, starting on page 199.
 * Add: the source used in this article, Benda-Beckmann, calls JF "extreme conservative / far right", so I would consider it to be a valid descriptor as well: A German Catastrophe?: German Historians and the Allied Bombings, 1945-2010, bottom of page 189, note 354. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of a PhD thesis as a significant source
Have come here from MHAR. Just querying the use of a PhD thesis as a significant source for this article. I know it is not a BLP, but still. A lot of what is being said about Boog is coming from this source, and I am concerned that WP:SCHOLARSHIP may not be being taken into account. Particularly that PhD theses "can be used, but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Was Benda-Beckmann supervised by a specialist in the Luftwaffe? Has their thesis been cited in published reliable sources on Luftwaffe historiography? Perhaps there is some corroboration from other sources to back up Benda-Beckmann's analysis of Boog? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the premise for the question is accurate. While Benda-Beckmann's work started as his PhD dissertation, it was published as a book by the Amsterdam University Press in 2010; please see Woldcat Identities entry. The link to dare.uva.nl was provided for ease of verification. If it's confusing, I can remove it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I'd be interested if anyone else had similar views on Boog, or whether this is an isolated view. Good luck with the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Allegations of a dubious source aside, over-reliance on a single source aside, the article also misquotes and misrepresents even this source. The least one could do is to add the "single source" template since the article indeed relies on this single source for everything except the most basic biographical information. Wulfhelm (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Character assassination
The title "apologetics" is grossly misleading, and that seems to be the point. Other academics James Corum and Richard Overy argue the same case for 'tactical bombing' against these cities. Does that make them apologists?

Corum also makes the case for attacking of civilians after Allied air raids. It is is not apologetics to argue German civilians were also victims of the war. I seem to remember in one of his books that the issue of crimes and so-called partisan warfare came up and he, and his co-authors described it as an excuse to murder women and children. Boog isn't a glorifying voice for the Wehrmacht either. Dapi89 (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated the revisions to the article. The editor who reverted doesn't seem to understand the context of those edits, or those that were made originally. Dapi89 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * reverted back for a third time. Terror bombing is a controversial term, James Corum and Richard Overy conclude there was no policy of terror bombing. Dapi89 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Richard Overy, though somewhat dodgy and 'revisionist' in his views (as if the Allies could have won the Second World War by adhering perfectly to the ivory-tower ethics of certain privileged peacetime academics), doesn't actually say what you say he says. In The Bombing War, he makes much more qualified comments, stating that the German air force was built up to support the army and possessed only 'tactical' aircraft, with nothing larger than twin-engine medium bombers, but also makes clear that the bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were intended to create a shock effect to expedite surrender (in the case of Rotterdam this was after a direct threat to bomb the city unless the Dutch surrendered). You could well call that terror bombing, and the people on the receiving end were certainly terrorised. Terror was also the explicit purpose of Germany's bombing of British cities from September 1940. If Boog argued otherwise, as he seemingly did, then he can safely be put down as a Nazi apologist. But the joke's on him, since Vol.VI of the semi-official history he worked on confirmed Albert Speer's declared view that, by early 1943, RAF Bomber Command was holding down at any one time more German manpower, weaponry and materiel than the Red Army, that this decisively enabled Soviet and Allied victory and that therefore RAF bombing was not terroristic but was suitably and strategically directed, and successfully so. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)