Talk:Joachim Hoffmann

reverted by 09:15, 2 March 2007 Constanz
The edits by an anonymous user do not cover hoffmann's life and work, but those who might have had minor connexions with the author. also wikipedia article says is to be avoided
 * I disagree that IS his life and work, his supporters, his promoters, his own statements and quotes from his own work.

| reverted by 09:15, 2 March 2007 Constanz 68.60.68.203 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See NOT. I've read Hoffmann's works and there is no hatred against jews as a nationality; Hoffmann is certainly merely anti-communist. He does not justify Holocaust, nor does he jsutify Nazi leadership and its acts. Let us stop such nonsense. Constanz - Talk 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He has written several books and is associated most closely with virulent anti-soviet and anti-russian oriented theories of holocaust denial. Dr. Hoffmann is a proponent of the Präventivkriegsthese or "preventive war thesis" which postulates that Hitler only attacked to defend Germany against invasion, a claim first proposed by the German politician and intellectual Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels. even your intro is totally inacceptable for an objective encyclopedia. This is slander, not coverage of his work. Constanz - Talk 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sentence 1 has been removed, as I initially responded on 2 March, this was of no great import to me as it is perfectly obvious by his own words. As to Präventivkriegsthese "and a claim first proposed" -it could be why this theory is so disreputable. Hoffmann is a minor pedant, these issues, such as "battle of the historians" etc, can be fleshed out in time. However in his involvement in the 'Dissecting the Holocaust' trial, Rudolf, and the pedigree and arguments of the case etc; I'm afraid to say he is of major historical significance. This theme needs quite a bit of further development, which I intend to do, and your various bluffs and pretexts, are not affecting that. Suffice for now, he is the first accredited historian to openly jump in on their side, Hoffmann's Grand Gesture, not just in print, but in law. is a major development  Exactly the opposite of what you pretend, of course. I might also add, there is a saying " A man's actions speak louder than his words" - something you might pay attention to. This article is moving on, with, or without you. Issues you have raised were already addressed below.68.60.68.203
 * your saying I'm on a soapbox by quoting his own book!!!! all I wrote is sourced check for yourself. And just where did you read that I said anything about him hating anybody. I wrote he was known as virulently anti-soviet and anti-russian holocoaust denier The stuff he said about Jews is his own. The people he defended were his own choice and his own testimonal. If you don't like the russian comment change it. These actions and these people are EVERYTHING to do with Hoffmann. thank you 68.60.68.203 11:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear about this: in a Criminal Trial of Holocaust Deniers, (who by the way, in spite of his defense were convicted of race persecution for that very reason ), in Germany, he defends them by citing himself to the court, in this very book for which he is most known, his very own 'Stalin’ s War of Extermination' that it was the Infamous Soviet minister of propaganda (the, as we both know Jew ) Ilya Ehrenburg who came up with the figure of six million.Not content with that He states IN HIS SWORN DEPOSITION to a court of Law that (the Jew )The very Ehrenburg who we all now know,INVENTED this six million dead, was ordered to incite a boundless national and racial hatred against all Germans.(and, I guess we are to infer, not the other way around -but who cares, given the Jew Ehrenburg's "years-long unbridled frenzies of hatred " ) This is standard "revisionist" holy gospel found in a thousand screeds all over the internet. But if I am to believe you mean it, His sworn testimony in this case does not cover Hoffmann's life and work(09:15, 2 March 2007 Constanz). Nor does presumably, the fact of his documented association with all of the disseminators and publishers of his work who are all notorious holocaust deniers bare relevance. Who else would deliver up his equanimious thoughts for the public? According to his fellow denier Daniel Michael, who reviewed his famous book on the famous denier website Institute for Historical Review (started by neo-nazi Willis Carto) Jews were very much involved in murderous assignments during the war But the ever gracious " merely anti-communist"( Constanz Wikipedia:NOT#Soapbox ) Hoffmann hastens to add that the criminal actions of individual Jews should no more reflect on the Jewish people as a whole than the criminal actions of individual Nazis on the German people. Yes "Let us stop such nonsense" 68.60.68.203 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "hastens to add that the criminal actions of individual Jews should no more reflect on the Jewish people as a whole than the criminal actions of individual Nazis on the German people." this as a point of FACT is 'Stalin’s War of Extermination' equating the actions of Soviet Jews with those of the Nazis.68.60.68.203 12:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

aniti-communism Hoffmann style
Seit Monaten wird die Veröffentlichung »Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941- -1945« des ehemaligen wissenschaftlichen Direktors des  Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes (MGFA) Joachim Hoffmann in der  Öffentlichkeit diskutiert. Hoffmann vertritt dort die sog. Präventivkriegsthese. Demnach sei Hitler mit dem »Unternehmen Barbarossa« 1941 einem Angriff durch die Sowjetunion nur kurz  zuvorgekommen. Zudem ''äußert sich Hoffmann auch zum »Auschwitzproblem« und zur »Gasangelegenheit«, für die er »letztlich keine Beweise habe  finden können. Bei der Zahl von sechs Millionen ermordeter Juden handele es sich ,um eine Zahl der Sowjetpropaganda'«''

(DIE TAGESZEITUNG vom 27. Dezember 1995).

For months the publication of "Stalins war of extermination 1941 - -1945 "by former scientific director of the Military-historical office for research (MGFA) Joachim Hoffmann has been publicly debated. Hoffmann represents the so-called Preventive war thesis. Therefore, Hitler with the "operation Barbarossa" 1941 only briefly forestalled an attack by the Soviet Union. Also Hoffmann is outspoken about the "Auschwitz problem" and  the "matter of the gas", for which he could find in the long run no proof''. On the number of six million murdered Jews he attributes it to a number of Soviet propaganda'"''

(the DAILY PAPER from 27 December 1995). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


 * If you had actually read Hoffmann's book, instead of some (a few) slanderous book reviews, you'd know that he disputed the 6 million victims in Auschwitz only, not the fact that at least 6 million Jews were murdered (taken together all the death camps). And Hoffmann was merely pointing at other authors' findings (recent dispute), since he was himself no big specialist in the 'statistics' of Auschwitz. Constanz - Talk 10:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "was completely destroyed by an IP user. even UNCAPITALISED letters etc. a schoolboy having fun??" Calling me names. ie "schoolboy" I'm afraid is  giving away the level of your thought process on this issue. Name calling is not a rational for  removing the article. You have nothing to add about his work. Only to claim that anyone who does not subscribe to his view is slandering him. Feel free to make that claim in the article. However what you are removing are his own words, which I'm afraid are a bit damaging. Feel free to make the claim that the quotes I provided are Hoffmann slandering himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Of course all those "slanderous book reviews" do seem to form some kind of consensus independent of whatever view I might form by "actually" reading "Hoffmann's book". I doubt you would be happy with my conclusions. Your personal theories about Hoffmann or the "slanderous book reviews" he suffers from can be posted on your own web site, if you are so adamant. Or maybe you can write your own book about him, and cite it here, just as Hoffmann did in court.68.60.68.203 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally I am not going to read Hoffmann's book as long as doing so would mean that I would be contributing funds of one of the long list of Neo-Nazi or Holocaust "Revision" publishers who print his work. It is not nessesary when his quotes are available in other media.68.60.68.203 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here: possibly you can sue your own government for slandering Hoffman since it offends you so much

Es ist unverkennbar, daß die Präventivkriegsthese von Joachim Hoffmann sowie seine Ausführungen über das sogenannte Auschwitz-Problem und über  die sogenannte Gasangelegenheit in der maßgeblichen wissenschaftlichen  Literatur, soweit sich dies feststellen läßt, einhellig auf Ablehnung  gestoßen sind. Fest steht nach heutigem Erkenntnisstand, daß die deutschen Vorbereitungen für den ab dem 22. Juni 1941 erfolgten Angriff gegen die Sowjetunion nicht im Blick auf einen Präventivschlag durchgeführt  wurden. Die Frage, ob die russischen Archive über sowjetische Absichten neue Erkenntnisse zutage fördern werden, muß bis zum Öffnen dieser  Archive hintangestellt werden.

"It is unmistakable that the preventive war thesis of Joachim Hoffmann as well as its remarks over the so-called Auschwitz problem and over the so-called affair of gas in the relevant scientific Literature, as far as this can be determined, are unanimously rejected. It stands firmly in today's level of knowledge that the Germans Preparations for the attack starting from 22 June 1941 against the Soviet Union was not accomplished in view of a preventive strike. The question over Soviet intentions, whether Russian archives will bring to light new realizations, must await the opening up of these archives to be deployed." 68.60.68.203 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

more slanderers

Es spricht für sich, daß der ehemalige NPD-Vorsitzende Adolf von Thadden unter der Überschrift "Eine Wende im Krieg der Historiker ?" eine vierseitige lobende Rezension in "Nation & Europa" verfaßte. Die "National-Zeitung" verweist genüßlich darauf, daß Hoffmann sich auch als Kronzeuge gegen die "6-Millionen-Lüge" eigne, indem er die Rechenspiele um die tatsächliche Zahl der Opfer in Auschwitz mitmache. Daß es sich dabei nicht um ein Mißverständnis handelte, belegte Hoffmann im Herbst letzten Jahres in seiner jüngsten Veröffentlichung in den "Vierteljahresheften für freie Geschichtsforschung". Dabei polemisiert er vor allem gegen Zahlen der jüdischen Holocaust-Opfer, die "von niemand anderem als dem berüchtigten Ilja Ehrenburg in der sowjetischen Auslandspresse aufgebracht" worden seien, und erklärt wörtlich, "daß die Zeit für endgültige Aussagen hinsichtlich der großen Judenverfolgung noch nicht gekommen ist." (zit. nach DRR Nr.50, S.10)

hxxp://www.uni-kassel.de/~schneid/geschpol3.html

The ABC's of Auschwitzleugner H is for Hoffmann
"please compare german wikipedia, where it was finally found out (!?) that hoffmann should not be called hol. denier" NPOV I am incredulous that someone would actually NPOV the article, which they had reduced to Hoffmann's own testimony about what he considered most relevant  to this question in his own work at a trial. Of course you realized your mistake and were forced to remove everything and resort to name-calling. 68.60.68.203 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange that you should do this instead of ADDING your facts from German wiki "where it was finally found out (!?) that hoffmann should not be called hol. denier" 68.60.68.203 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I was not aware that the german wikipedia existed for the purpose of deciding moral or legal issues. ie whether hoffmann should be called a holocaust denier or guilty of holocaust denial. I personally don't care about particular labels. Holocaust denial is not a crime for most readers of the english wikipedia, it does not have the legal significance that it does in Gemany. However it seems there are plenty of writers in Germany who do think that he should be called exactly that, and of course there was the question of the Green Party inquiry at the Bundestag which I am sure you are aware of. Those people think he should have been charged with a crime. But he is dead now, and it is not a legal question. 68.60.68.203 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Green Party Inquiry Bundestag archives

| Inquiry Bundestag archives

| Gov response Bundestag archives

Joachim Hoffmann Ein Gutachten für Germar Rudolf

P is for Präventivkriegsthese

Die Präventivkriegsthese und die Problematik des 22. Juni 1941

von: Janina Kraus

1. Fachsemester

Inhalt

1. Einleitung S. 3

2. Die Präventivkriegsthese S. 4

3. Vertreter der Präventivkriegsthese S. 6

3.1 Ernst Topitsch S. 7 3.2 Joachim Hoffmann S. 8 3.3. Viktor Suworow S. 8 3.4 Die Argumentationsmuster der Vertreter S. 10

4. Mängel in den Arbeiten der Historiker S. 11

4.1 Hitlers Motivation S. 11 4.2 Fehlerhafter Umgang mit Quellen S. 12

5. Fazit S. 14

6. Literatur S. 15

6.1. Primärliteratur S. 15 6.2. Sekundärliteratur S. 15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

We deny the holocaust and we deny that we deny it
Are "Revisionists" Holocaust-deniers? from http://www.nizkor.org/features/revision-or-denial/

For the purposes of this discussion, I am using a fairly generic definition of the word Holocaust, which is

the Number

the murder of six million Jews

the Plan

as a central act of state by the Nazis during the Second World War,

the Method

many in gas chambers.

So, someone who denied these things would be a Holocaust-denier, right?

Denial  Revisionists DO say

the Plan

that there was no German program to exterminate Europe's Jews,

the Method

that numerous claims of mass killings in "gas chambers" are false,

the Number

and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration.

68.60.68.203 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy of the Common Toad
or

What does Hoffman say about the Holocaust

the Plan

Jews were very much involved in murderous assignments during the war...responsible for the deaths of millions...the criminal actions of individual Jews should no more reflect on the Jewish people as a whole than the criminal actions of individual Nazis on the German people.

ie no plan just individual Nazis just like the murderous  individual Jews responsible for the deaths of millions (although he also says that there was a plan  by  Ehrenburg  whose unbridled frenzies of hatred culminated in his call to "put an end to Germany" "to reduce the population of Germany", towards which end the only thing left to decide was whether it would be better "to kill the Germans with axes or with clubs".

the Method

Hoffmann is outspoken about the "Auschwitz problem" and the "matter of the gas", for which he could find in the long run no proof.

(DIE TAGESZEITUNG vom 27. Dezember 1995).

But they are "slanderers" so don't take their word for it, try the official government response to certain questions posed in the Bundestag:

"Es ist unverkennbar, daß die Präventivkriegsthese von Joachim Hoffmann sowie seine Ausführungen über das sogenannte Auschwitz-Problem und über  die sogenannte Gasangelegenheit in der maßgeblichen wissenschaftlichen  Literatur, soweit sich dies feststellen läßt, einhellig auf Ablehnung  gestoßen sind... "

It is unmistakable that the preventive war thesis of Joachim Hoffmann as well as its remarks over the so-called Auschwitz problem and over the so-called affair of gas in the relevant scientific Literature, as far as this can be determined, are unanimously rejected...

(Federal response to question 3a)

But then "Hoffmann was merely pointing at other authors' findings (recent dispute), since he was himself no big specialist in the 'statistics' of Auschwitz. Constanz - Talk 10:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)" which brings us to...

the Number

Citing Himself under oath to a court of law in a trial of Holocaust Deniers in Gemany -from his book'Stalin’ s War of Extermination'

To this day the total number of Jewish victims is generally given as 6 million...put about by none other than the infamous Soviet Minister of Propaganda, Ilya Ehrenburg. Thus it was Ehrenburg who came up with the figure of six million.

(the infamous Soviet Minister of Propaganda, Ilya Ehrenburg was a Jew)

As "a schoolboy having fun??", "an IP user" who "completely destroyed" "the style in the intro" with "UNCAPITALISED letters etc" forcing the deletion of the article, I admit that I am overwhelmingly confused by this strange paradox.

68.60.68.203 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Diese Opferzahl hat im Jahre 1990 allerdings eine eine starke Herabminderung erfahren, sie beträgt nach letzten Meldungen - und nicht weniger furchtbar - heute zwischen 631.000 und 711.000 und scheint sich damit einer realistischen Vorstellung anzunähern. Daß die dokumentarisch verbürgte Zahl von 74.000 nur einen Teil der tatsächlichen Verluste umfassen kann, dürfte im übrigen nicht zu bezweifeln sein. Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945 Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, München 1995, Seite 302 f.

Dr. Hoffmann, der dreißig Jahre lang Wissenschaftlicher Direktor des Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes der Bundeswehr war, spricht hier Klartext: "Dokumentarisch verbürgt" seien für Auschwitz 74.000 Todesopfer. Er macht darauf aufmerksam, daß die Zahlen zwischen 631.000 und 711.000 nur Annäherungswerte sind, keine endgültigen Tatsachen. Er rechnet also noch einmal mit einer Senkung der Todeszahlen.

hxxp://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//k/koch.manfred/1996/koch.1096.de

The unimputable Dr Hoffmann Direktor des Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes der Bundeswehr has the "exterminationists" on the run here68.60.68.203 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the old soft soap
Deniers have this habit of pointing out all the good parts in Hoffmann, thus slandering him with his own words.

hxxp://www.nizkor.vex.net/ftp.cgi/people/k/ftp.py?people/k//koch.manfred/1996/koch.1196.de

Der Sowjetische Ankläger, Oberjustizrat Smirnov, hatte vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof am 19. Februar 1946 des langen und breiten und auf der Basis fabrizierten Materials (USSR-196, USSR-197, USSR-393) die Anklage vorgetragen, die Deutschen hätten aus den Leichen ermordeter Juden fabrikmäßig Seife hergestellt.

Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945

Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, München 1995, Seite 162 68.60.68.203 02:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dogs and Fleas
Eigentlich wäre damit schon genug gesagt, aber leider ist damit der Traurigkeit noch kein Ende gesetzt. Denn als ich zusammen mit meinem Partner Dr. Robert H. Countess anfing, revisionistische Literatur in englischer Sprache zu publizieren, ergab sich noch eine ganz andere Kategorie von Problemen mit dem IHR, die kein anderer mit dem Institute haben konnte, da es zur Zeit außer dem von Herrn Dr. Countess und mir geführten Verlag Theses & Dissertations Press keinen anderen Verlag gibt, der englischsprachige revisionistische Literatur verlegt. ....

...Im ersten Fall geht es um den deutschen Sammelband Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, der Mitte 2000 auf Englisch unter dem Titel Dissecting the Holocaust bei Theses & Dissertations Press erschien.[38] In all den Jahren seit der Veröffentlichung der deutschen Ausgabe Ende 1994 kam Herr Weber offenbar nie auf den Gedanken, den deutschen Verleger des Buches um Übersetzungsrechte zu bitten....

....Das gleiche Spiel wiederholte sich im Jahr 2000, als Dr. Countess und ich an der Veröffentlichung einer englischen Ausgabe des Buches Stalins Vernichtungskrieg von Joachim Hoffmann arbeiteten (in englisch: Stalin's War of Extermination).[39] Dieses Buch erschien erstmalig in deutscher Sprache anno 1995 und erweckte in Deutschland rege Aufmerksamkeit. Natürlich muß Mark Weber dieses Buch seither gekannt haben, aber erst nachdem sich Dr. Countess im Jahr 2000 um die englischen Rechte kümmerte, zeigte Mark Weber ein Interesse an dem Projekt. Wo war Webers Interesse bloß in den Jahren 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999? .......

....Soweit mir bekannt ist, hat sich Mark Weber noch nicht einmal um eine Kontaktaufnahme zu den betroffenen Verlegern und Autoren bemüht...

....Sobald ich meine englischsprachigen revisionistischen Bücher veröffentlicht hatte, zeigte sich ein neues, unerfreuliches Verhaltensmuster der führenden Leute des IHR, das mich noch mehr aufbrachte. Während der 13. IHR-Konferenz im Juni 2000 sprach ich mit Greg Raven, der für den Erwerb von Büchern zum Wiederverkauf zuständig war, über die Möglichkeit, ob das IHR mein Buch Dissecting the Holocaust, das im August 2000 vom Drucker ausgeliefert werden sollte, zum Verkauf an seine Kunden anbieten könnte. Er teilte mir mit, er sei willens, dieses Buch in sein Angebot aufzunehmen, vorausgesetzt, ich würde ihm einen Rabatt von 80% zugestehen....dann mag man verstehen, daß ich über eine solch empörende Aussage ziemlich erregt war....I felt this demand therefore rather as a declaration of war against me as a unwillkommenen revisionistic publishing house competitor...

SLANDER!

...Aber damit war die Geschichte noch nicht zu Ende. Als ich Anfang 2001 die beiden revisionistischen Werke The Giant With Feet of Clay von Jürgen Graf (Übersetzung des Buches Riese auf tönernen Füßen) und Stalin's War of Extermination veröffentlicht hatte, teilte mir G. Raven mit, er könne die Bücher anderer Verleger nicht ins Programm aufnehmen, weil das IHR ansonsten seinen Status als gemeinnützige Organisation gefährde....

........Unsere Persönlichkeiten sind einfach ganz und gar unvereinbar. # Seit 1991, als ich mit der Vorbereitung der revisionistischen Anthologie Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (später unter dem Titel Dissecting the Holocaust auf Englisch erschienen) begann, habe ich bei jedem Projekt, bei dem ich beteiligt war, eine führende Rolle gespielt.......BLAH BLAH BLAH etc

Nachrufe   Dr. Joachim Hoffmann    Der Historiker Dr. phil. Joachim Hoffmann, am 1.12.1930 in Königsberg/Pr. geboren, starb am 8. Februar 2002 an den Folgen eines Herzversagens....

...Sein mit Abstand bedeutendstes wissenschaftliches Werk Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945, 1995 erstmalig erschienen, brachte ihm sowohl wissenschaftlichen Ruhm als auch endlose Angriffe seitens ideologischer Fanatiker vom Schlage eines Hannes Heer und Philipp Reemtsma, die eine Historisierung und Kontextualisierung des deutschen Angriffs auf die Sowjetunion und des sich daraus ergebenden beiderseitigen Vernichtungskrieges nicht ertragen bzw. hinnehmen können. Die Versuche, ihn mit legalen Mitteln mundtot zu machen, schlugen jedoch fehl (vgl. VffG 4/99, S. 455-458)....

Nicht nur aufgrund seines hervorragenden Buches muß Dr. Hoffmann als der mutigste Historiker Deutschlands bezeichnet werden, sondern auch deshalb, weil er sich nicht scheute, vor Gericht als sachverständiger Zeuge zu Gunsten dissidenter Historiker auszusagen. In einem Gutachten zu Gunsten des revisionistischen Sammelbandes Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte und dessen Herausgebers Germar Rudolf alias Ernst Gauss bestätigte er die Wissenschaftlichkeit des Werkes und setzte sich dafür ein, daß dem Herausgeber, den Autoren und dem Verleger der menschenrechtliche Schutz von Meinungsfreiheit und Freiheit der Wissenschaft gewährt werden müsse. Aufgrund dieser gutachterlichen Tätigkeit kam Dr. Hoffmann 1997/98 erneut unter Beschuß, nachdem der Text des Gutachtens in der vorliegenden Zeitschrift veröffentlicht worden war (vgl. VffG 3/97, S. 205ff.). Dr. Hoffmann ging jedoch seinen Weg unerschrocken und aufrecht weiter, als er seit Ende 2000 intensiv mit Germar Rudolf als Herausgeber an der Veröffentlichung einer englischen Fassung seines Buches zusammenarbeitete, die schließlich am 22. Juni 2001, 60 Jahre nach Beginn des Rußlandfeldzuges, in den USA im Verlag Theses & Dissertations Press erschien. Wenn bestimmte Kreise in Deutschland wüßten, daß Herr Germar Rudolf nun Verleger bei Theses & Dissertations Press ist, so würden diese sich gewaltig ärgern, schrieb Dr. Hoffmann süffisant in einem persönlichen Schreiben vom 21.7.2001. Herr Dr. Hoffmann war voll des Lobes und Dankes angesichts der hochwertigen Qualität, mit der sein Buch in den USA erschien. Es war mir eine Ehre, dem mutigsten Historiker Nachkriegsdeutschlands diesen Dienst erweisen und mich auf diese Weise bei ihm bedanken zu dürfen! Germar Rudolf68.60.68.203 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
It's worth noting, for all the references to the German version of the page, that German Wikipedia has Hoffmann in Kategorie:Geschichtsrevisionismus. I've added the English analogue to this page. -- TedFrank 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks 68.60.68.203 09:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazipedia
I've tried to delete all of the Hoffmann term excpets the small description since the last entry was just an outline of a Holocaust denial ideaology made to convince its viewers. The whole term was biased and one sided. Start Nazipedia or something and stop your lie spread. I never understood those people, are they proud or dissapointed that Hitler didn't kill 6 million as they claim.
 * sorry you feel that way - you make for strange bedfellows w/ my previous censor- you prefer that Hoffman stays covered, the other that he is dressed up in a respectable suit 68.60.68.203 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my role as Nazipedian liar I feel I should point out (not to brag or anything), that Hitler also killed his dog and his wife - and that you have  slighted him by at least 25 million dead. Of course lies can be disproved, can't they, so I am sure you will do that with your powerful arguments. 68.60.68.203 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit War
I've noticed Constanz has stopped editing the page. Assuming Constanz is no longer reading this, and if he is then he should feel free to answer, I'll ask 68.60.68.203: The edit war seem to have stopped. What happened? Did Constanz abandon the article, did you work out your differences, what? --Scorpios 04:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Constanz abandoned Wikipedia 68.60.68.203 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
The article has been marked for cleanup. There is a lot of overlap to articles on Holocaust denial. And when I read labels like the Auschwitz numbers gambit, I was not initially sure if the article was not revisionist by itself. Fortunately, it is not revisionist.

In order to clean up the article, I propose the following: link in relevant parts about holocaust denial and how it is refuted. Mention that Hoffmann was deliberately vague and misleading about the holocaust and that he spoke in support of holocaust deniers. However, the main thrust of Hoffmann was to imply that the German invasion of the Soviet Union was a preventive measure. His attempt at apologetics and falsifying history needs to be covered in more detail. His books are used as a kind of entry drug for the extreme right. -- Zz 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Auschwitz numbers gambit' is a standard term in American anti-denial scholarship -yes there is overlap because it is Hoffmans claim to fame -a so called legitimate historian (the first, a la Rudolf the first so called legitimate "scientist" denier who also just happens to be the guy he testifies for) who lends his "expertise" to defend holocaust deniers in court. "His attempt at apologetics and falsifying history needs to be covered in more detail. His books are used as a kind of entry drug for the extreme right" Have at it.  Plenty of detail has already been provided71.227.123.187 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The obvious problem seems to be, that the author of this article was unable to just describe the controversy. Instead he took part in it. In this case against Hoffmann. This can not be called a serious work, but let's see what we can do. --Memnon335bc 10:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The IP that wrote the page had collected almost everything that could somehow discredit Hoffmann. For example, nonsense claims that Hoffmann declared Operation Barbarossa a defensive war (complete lie!) and all this and that about Jürgen Graf and David Irving etc which have no connection at all to Hoffmann. It's a pity that such trolls like that anon are allowed to edit Wikipedia. 193.40.5.245 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The task off a serious article should be to sum a controvery up. Nothing more. It is not for the author to argue against any side. He should only outline, who said what. That's all. I am rather sure, that it is still possible to clean the text up in this sense. --Memnon335bc 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The IP that wrote the page had collected almost everything that could somehow discredit Hoffmann. For example, nonsense claims that Hoffmann declared Operation Barbarossa a defensive war (complete lie!) perhaps the estonian sock puppet can explain this??

Ok, I did the "clean up". Before the article was chaotic. I messed out all the stuff, which was wrong, not referred or absolutely displaced here. Of course, I still used some of the given refernces. The chaos might be gone, if someone wants to add points, he'll easilyfind the right part. Through I amnot a native English speaker, it would be nice, if one could look through the text and correct all my mistakes. Thx, --Memnon335bc 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hitler (ist) nur knapp einem mit Hochdruck vorbereiteten Angriff Stalins zuvorgekommen. Der 22.Juni 1941 war so ziemlich der letzte *Termin, um überhaupt noch einen ‚Präventivkrieg’ führen zu können.
 * (Hitler only narrowly anticipated an attack that Stalin was preparing with high pressure. 22 June 1941 was about the last date on *which such a 'preventive war' could still be waged at all. ) Hoffmann "Stalin's War of Extermination"71.227.123.187 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "correct all my mistakes" your mistake is thinking you can remove the article like Constanz did.71.227.123.187 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [Holocaust denial|Holocaust deniers]] rely on several common gambits, or ploys, which scholars are familiar with, when accounting for the number killed at Auschwitz to distract from the known facts. These are know as Auschwitz Numbers gambits.-- who says that? the anon, who wrote this article??-- How about reading the  4 citations provided.  So the number is up for debate eh?? its disputed POV. Good luck on this page 71.227.123.187 06:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

First: Your article was absolutely chaotic. Second: You have written 90% of that text about holocaust denial etc. which is abolutely displaced in this article. Why not write it in the article holocaust denial, where it fits far better? Third: Writing this much about holocaust denial, it raises the simple question, who has ever said, Hoffmann was a denyer? Conclusion: What you've been doing was not writing an objective article. You persanally dislike this author and because of that you wrote this conglomerte of different accusitions, false states (and there was a lot of false things there) and stuff, which doesn't belong here. A serious article doesn't argue. it does not argue against anyone or any point of view. A serious article is simply stating basic information on its subject and then if necessary it only sums up, what other serious authors think about it. That's all. Sorry, but here is not the place for your personal campaign. --Memnon335bc 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * False statements and there was a lot of false things there- such as???? LIKE DUDE, CAN YOU NAME ONE before removing the article? like Constanz you make claims -but do not back them up, only remove what was written. I believe you called me a vandal to justify your actions in the comments?  All anyone has to do is look at the history and know who is flying the false flag and who is editing in good faith. Meanwhile I am going to enjoy my summer. 71.227.123.187 23:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "I am not going to read Hoffmann's book" (01:06, 4 March 2007) A nice quote. Why? Because it is exactly the reason, why any "discussion" with you about Hoffmann's works and views is pointless through you have obviously not read them. As soon as you have read it, we can discuss as long as you want, but not earlier. --Memnon335bc 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

cleanup
I've tried to clean up the prose here, but there are some passages that are still very very confusing. The bit about holocaust numbers seems to mix up the issue of how many died in Aushwitz with the separate question of how many died in the holocaust overall. I can't acually decipher what the argument is meant to be here. Paul B 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that there was a much longer, properly footnoted version. If there are some POV problems with it, work with the literate one, not the gibberish one. Paul B 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * POV problems? Have you read works of Hoffmann? Have you noticed that this "longer and footnoted version" is completely false? Have you read some lines above, that the IP author of this version has never read anything from Hoffmann? The version may be longer, but it is false. So if you wanna help please clean up a version in which the facts are right. Thx for your help. --Memnon335bc 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your version was illiterate, incoherent and unsupported. What is "completely false"? There is nothing at all above which justifies any statement about any specific falsity. As far as I can see it goes off on tangents and contains a lot of material of dubious relevance, but it does at least make sense.
 * I can't see the point of weird sections like this, which don't even mention Hoffman
 * "Forensic chemistry is, I repeat, an exact science.' Holocaust-denier David Irving, introduction to the Leuchter Report, 1988. '[C]hemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust 'rigorously'.' Holocaust-denier and chemist Germar Rudolf response to Rich Green, 1998" Paul B 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It would take like 10 pages just to describe what is all false in this version. And it is above that consisting of 90% of stuff which has nothing todowith Hoffmann at all. My version was supported by refernces and it contained no mistake. I have read Hoffmanns works and I have been following the controversy about them. As you can read the author of this actual version has never read any of them. His version maybe longer (the reason forthat is,that 90% of the text have nothing todo with Hoffmann), but not correct full of POV and tons of falsification. Just a small taste: These are just few examples. It would take days to count all falsifications. I urge you not to let this version stand there, for it is simply spreading lies.--Memnon335bc 00:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Role in the German Historikerstreit" - The Historikerstreit was in 1986 and 1987,long before Hoffmann had published anything about the holocaust. He has simply not taken part in it.
 * "Holocaust Denial" - Most interesting is that one finds no references to state which authority has ever accused Hoffman of doing so. Also the qutes are wrong through Hoffmann himself quoted other authors.
 * Introduction: "he claimed that Stalin planned a war of extermination against Germany, and that Hitler attacked, to preempt an invasion by the Soviet Union." - Even this is complete nonsense and one will not find any reference for this, because it is simplynot in the book. Hoffmann never said, that Hitler had attackedto preemptan invasion.
 * spreading lies- This virulent accusation, seems to be a bad habit shared by the previously mentioned fellow editor of yours on the wiki.de hoffman page, who also tried unsuccessfully to impose himself here. You can see the result he got, proceed as you see fit.

For starters, read your own citations. While I don't fault you for not being a native English speaker You provided Wehler, Hans-Ulrich; Review author Georg G. Iggers (October 1989). "Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit? Ein polemischer Essay zum "Historikersteit."". The American Historical Review Vol. 94 (No. 4): pp. 1127-1128. DOI:doi:10.2307/1906698 as part of your translation of the German wiki page, which you substituted for the article here. The essay itself is in German, and should not be a problem for your comprehension. The inquiry at the Bundestag (is also in German and is sourced on the page you removed, if you go to the articles history page), had the following to say about your Wehler reference.
 * "Role in the German Historikerstreit" - The Historikerstreit was in 1986 and 1987,long before Hoffmann had published anything about the holocaust. He has simply not taken part in it.
 * 8. B) To what extent can the Federal Government in this connection confirm, State historian Hans Ulrich Wehler, who already determined in 1988 that a group of historians formed around Hoffmann, representing the preventive war thesis? (see Wehler, H. - Disposal of the German past? A polemic essay on "Historikersteit.", Munich 1988)?
 * 8. C)C) To what extent does the Federal Government acknowledge that Wehler's statement confirms the fact that the first adviser of the MGFA consisted predominantly of persons, who represented the positions of Ernst Nolte in the so-called historian controversy (see ebd.)?
 * See also. Removing the Nazi Stain? The Quarrel of the German Historians Konrad H. Jarausch German Studies Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (May, 1988), pp. 285-301 doi:10.2307/1429974 for reference to Hoffmann's role. This is however in English.

What is your source for the statement that ''The Historikerstreit was in 1986 and 1987,long before Hoffmann had published anything about the holocaust. He has simply not taken part in it. Why did you provide a citation in 'your'   version [which]  was supported by refernces'' who's very title directly contradicts your statement? That is not easy to understand if you "have been following the controversy about them."  Of course this area of Hoffman's influence does need considerable expansion in the article, as previously suggested. The Historikerstreit and its effects are also not limited to two years in the late eighties.71.227.123.187 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Holocaust Denial" - Most interesting is that one finds no references to state which authority has ever accused Hoffman of doing so

The article deals with the arguments that Hoffman used in court and elsewhere in support of self-described Holocaust revisionists in their legal battles in the run up to a conviction for racial persecution, under the "Auschwitzleugner" laws. The article does not classify Hoffman per se as a Holocaust Denier. It does classify his arguments in favor of Deniers, in light of Holocaust denial theory. While the cited authorities do not specifically address Hoffman, they address the specific arguments he makes to support them. Hoffman has been accused directly of being an "Auschwitzleugner" by opponents, of course, and claimed as one of their own, by Holocaust deniers themselves. That subject needs to be addressed, with proper references, as you point out.71.227.123.187 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Introduction: "he claimed that Stalin planned a war of extermination against Germany, and that Hitler attacked, to preempt an invasion by the Soviet Union." - Even this is complete nonsense and one will not find any reference for this,

What is it you understand the preventative war thesis to mean exactly? The federal government of Germany (not just the opposition) officially repudiated Hoffman as follows. "It is unmistakable that the preventive war thesis of Joachim Hoffmann as well as his remarks over the so-called Auschwitz problem and over the so-called affair of gas in the relevant scientific Literature, as far as this can be determined, are unanimously rejected. It stands firmly in today's level of knowledge that the Germans Preparations for the attack starting from 22 June 1941 against the Soviet Union was not accomplished in view of a preventive strike. The question over Soviet intentions, whether Russian archives will bring to light new realizations, must await the opening up of these archives to be deployed." Hoffman has been cited himself in discussions above, and within the article. The meaning is clear. Your failure to read the references provided does not mean that they do not exist, only that you do not look at them.71.227.123.187 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I repeat myself once more: As soon as you have read the works of Hoffmann we can discuss them as long as you wish. Only then one is able to seperate right from wrong instead of simply repeating falsifications and misunderstandings of people, who have obviously not been reading Hoffmanns works themselves. --Memnon335bc 21:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Just to see hao important reading might be a small example: The claim, that Hoffmann had been writing about a preemptiv or preventiv war was coming from a newspaper (http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/13/057/1305773.asc). The party of the greens just picked it up and asked the goverment for its point of view. Unfortunately this one had also not been reading the book. If it had (and if you had) it (you) would have relised, that there is no such statement in any of his books. ;-) Soemething wrong does not become right, just because some people don't relise its's wrong. --Memnon335bc 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bundestag questions do refer to articles in DIE TAGESZEITUNG vom 27. Dezember 1995, FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG vom 16. Oktober 1986, DER SPIEGEL from 5 February 1996, as well as the work of State  historian Hans Ulrich Wehler among other things. The wiki article makes clear that ruling party State Secretary Michaela Geiger stated that she was unable to comment on the questions, when they were submitted during question time on 28 of February 1996, because she had not read it, and that "an examination in full" of all 336 pages "had not yet taken place". The Official response was given on 11.10.1996, nearly eight months later. In addition to the above comments  "It is unmistakable that the preventive war thesis of Joachim Hoffmann.... are unanimously rejected." etc The Government also responded specifically to the contentions of Hans Ulrich Wehler (Hans-Ulrich Wehler bestätigen, der schon 1988 festgestellt hat, daß sich um Hoffmann eine Gruppe von Historikern gebildet habe, die die Präventivkriegsthese vertritt (vgl. Wehler, H.- U., Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit?, München 1988)? concerning a group supporting this preventative war thesis forming around Hoffmann in 1988 at the MGFA. The government responded as follows.In seinem Buch »Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit«, München 1988, nimmt der Bielefelder Historiker Hans Ulrich Wehler sowohl auf die durch Joachim Hoffmann vertretenen Thesen als auch auf Kontroversen innerhalb des MGFA Bezug. Wenn Hans Ulrich Wehler jedoch von einer Gruppe rechtskonservativer Historiker um Joachim Hoffmann spricht, so bezieht er sich auf einen vielbeachteten Aufsatz der Historikerin Bianca Pietrow-Ennker in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 14, (1988), S. 116--135, in dem zwar von »Autoren, die Hoffmanns Standpunkt teilen« gesprochen, jedoch keine Verbindung zu Mitarbeitern des MGFA hergestellt wird. Now I have not read "the much-considered essay of the Historian Bianca Pietrow-Ennker in: History and society 14, (1988), S. 116 -- 135,"  which the government states was a source for Wehler, and of which, the government says, he does not refer a group forming around Hoffmann's  Präventivkriegsthese at the MGFA specifically.  The readers who have been given this information are free to conclude from all this, just as readily as you did, that the federal government of the time "obviously" didn't read anything, and didn't know right from wrong.71.227.123.187 02:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Curiously there is no sign, that the Secretary has read Hoffmann's book. Anyway you are making it just too complicate. The simple question is: Did Hoffmann write that Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union was a preventiv strike? The only serious way to answer this question properly is to take a look into the works of Hoffmann. And what do we find there? We find that Hoffmann like many other writers is obviously convinced that Stalin planned a war against Germany (a war and not a war of exterminition, as you falsly wrote). But we don't find Hoffmann writing that Hitler knew about this nor that he planned his attack on Stalin for this reason. Actualy we don't find anything substantial about Hitler's motives in Hoffmanns book. Regarding this fact, it doesn't matter at all what someone else writes. You see, if you had read the book, we could save a lot of time here. --Memnon335bc 13:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Too quiet
Well looks like this all died down a year ago.. The following ref seems irrelevant to me.

Comments or would someone like to remove it? Rich Farmbrough, 14:15 23 August 2008 (GMT).

Holocaust sub-section
The entire section is sourced only to primary sources, i.e. books by Hoffman himself, and instead of citing him directly, this is actually an editorial summary. Do we have any secondary sources about it? If not, I am afraid this section is WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to add some.Thelostone41 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see a few refs in another section flatly saying that he has been criticized. But for what, exactly? Any criticism must be very specific and supported by secondary RS. Welcome to expand and properly source this and other sections if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I will be working on this page with what was on here.Thelostone41 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think restoring the 14 year old version was not a good idea. Remember that the current version reflects consensus and work by a lot of contributors. By reverting you remove all their good faith work. Do you know German to verify all these references? Some contributors who edited here do know German, and I am sure they made their changes for a good reason. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like there was a big fight on this page then people stopped working on it trying to see what I can do I know some German from my mom.Thelostone41 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So far you just reverted my edits, and what you do is concerning. Yes, someone named Wigbert Grabert could be an extremist, whoever, but what these sources say about the subject of this page, i.e. Joachim Hoffmann? They must name him directly. And no, WP:PRIMARY (like court rulings about Wigbert Grabert) are not good. Yes, the Hoffmann appeared on the trial as an expert-witness. OK. But did any secondary RS described his testimony as anything problematic? You need such RS, and I do not see them at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - Which sources/RS say that he "defended a Holocaust denier" in a bad sense (meaning he supported the denier)? Simply being an expert witness in a court does not mean anything. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This one Joachim Hoffmann: Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte: Gutachterliche Stellungnahme. In: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung Jg. 1 (1997) Nr. 3, S. 205-207.Thelostone41 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So, this is (translation): Joachim Hoffmann: Basics of contemporary history: Expert opinion. In: Vierteljahreshefte für free historical research vol. 1 (1997) No. 3, pp. 205-207 No, this is a primary source by the subject. You need a strong (better scholarly) secondary RS which tells something about the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I added H ref it is sponsored by the German archives.Thelostone41 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What you refer to is a website posting/blog post by an anonymous person. Why do you think this qualifies as an RS on Holocaust subjects? Yes, author of the posting disagree with the evaluation of a book (by Germar Rudolf) by Hoffman. So what? How this shows that Hoffman belongs to (or connected to) "far-right"? My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The same year the the right-wing press Herbig Verlag published his book, in which he said in Auschwitz a number of only 74,000 victims can be considered certain https://www.h-ref.de/literatur/h/hoffmann-joachim/gutachten.php..This site is recognized also in real life by German schools as a reliable source on the Holocaust http://lernen-aus-der-geschichte.de/Lernen-und-Lehren/content/8978/2010-11-08-Webportal-Holocaust-Referenz.Thelostone41 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this does not look like an RS. (a) Can you even say who was author of this posting? I do not see it. (b) This is just a web site called (translation) "website Holocaust Reference". OK, but do you know any publications (RS) about it which claim there is any fact checking process out there? If you still think this is an RS, please ask at WP:RSNB. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - Note that even the questionable source you cited does not call him a "Holocaust denier". But once again, if there are scholarly RS making such claim, I totally agree to include it. I just do not see such RS.My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * He said in Auschwitz a number of only 74,000 victims can be considered certain that's a Holocaust denier talking point? Just like we say on Grover Furrs page he is a  Soviet war crimes denier who holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This 74,000 number comes on the page from here, which is a self-published source of questionable authorship. The rest is your personal conclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hitler war section
@Thelostone41, you just restored this section that was unsourced for 10 years. Please either remove this section or provide good secondary sources to support these contentious claims. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am still trying to work on this page but I will do something with it.Thelostone41 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversies
@Thelostone41. Page tells he "has been criticised by historians for his uncritical attitude to the Nazi regime, and its war in the Soviet Union". This is not good. What exactly he said about the Nazi regime was criticized and why? Can we take it from the cited sources? And in any event, looking at the editing on this page and discussion, these sources must be checked/verified. Do you have any of them available and can you develop/elaborate this content? Vague accusations are never good and frequently misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * For is book and I have done research on Mr.Hoffmann and I have checked/verified the sources that I did not add. Right now the opening is marching with the sources.Thelostone41 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So, he was criticized for what exactly? What "uncritical attitude" means? My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * For is views on Auschwitz and for downplaying the Nazi Race policy's for operation Barbarossa.Thelostone41 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "for downplaying the Nazi Race policy's for operation Barbarossa". Meaning that he supported Racial policy of Nazi Germany? Well, that would definitely qualify him as a Nazi. But could you please cite exactly and in some detail what RS tell about it, with pages, quotations, etc.? So far you produced only one self-published source that does NOT make such claim. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just in case, here is an informative scholarly review in English of some work by Joachim Hoffmann. Sure, some of his views can be regarded as disputable and can/should be included to the page. I also checked a couple of other sources currently used on the page, i.e. Hillinger, Field, and this . Overall, they do not support the current summary on the page. Will fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)