Talk:Raul Hilberg

Zundel trials
I have removed section on Zundel trials as it's a mess. It had the POV of a holocaust denier with a little rant against open-source editing by an anti-holocaust-denier stuck in the middle of it. I don't know enough about the subject to sort the mess out, so I've cut it out entirely.

But surely if Hilberg said under oath that he had never personally witnessed any actual gassings/cremations, and had never personally verified any of his sources that should be of note? You say here that anything that can not be verified/sourced should not be taken as absolute truth(and I agree with that), yet the entire "seminal" 3-volume work had no attempts by Hilberg to check up on any facts or cross-reference anything. I will find the relevant sources with regards to the Zundel trial and Hilberg's under oath admissions of forgery and lazy research and post them here. Although it's a safe bet that someone will call it vandalism..........

Why call it vandalism, wikipedia is an honest aspiring project, isn't it. The search for truth isn't political, is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled across some number that seem odd. In Hilberg's famous work ( revised edition ) he says that the populationafter WW2 of Jews ( world or just Europe I am not sure was 17,583,057. He gives the nnumber who died during WW2 as 1,593,292. How has this number gone unchallanged by believers in the holocaust, or why hasn't it been used endlessly by deniers. This is the largest historical revision I have seen yet - the book is quite old so this must be known by most of the combatants from both sides. The numbers he gives are not far off of a natural eath rate from an acturay's table - zippo comment from the believers, I thought he would be crucified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).


 * 159.105.80.63, you make the same claim on the Criticism to Holocaust Denial Talk page. Could you please give the page reference, please? I would be glad to check the revised edition for you. But these numbers are quite unlikely.--Ninarosa 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't get into Hilberg on the denial page - but I am impressed at how fast you sprang to action. Must be your shift on the watchlist, or whatever they call it. I was chasing down some other stuff and found a site that gave these numbers and some floated by the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documnetation out of TelAviv in 1960ish. The WCCJD had about the same numbers, on second thought they seem very close to Hilberg's earlier edition. The article I surfed thought the numbers were in toto for all of Europe ( I jumped the gun, I knew they couldn't be right but Hilberg ,ie Zundel trial, may have gotten flustered but now I think these were actually just for Auschwitz and the site I surfed got it all wrong. I believe Hilberg was in the 1,000,000 range in 1960 for Auschwitz and then bumped it to 1.5. PS I have heard about a watchlist to see if any article you check has been changed - probably good to know about, but how does your particular watchlist work. Is it a polling software from Wiki Central or just pure hard work or luck or do you just have a few articles given to oversee? But good job - ask for a raise. PSPS Do you follow me everwhere - I have seen some get mad, I think it is amusing. Would you rather have to go to math, computer, etc? Are you reading this as I type? Do you get pais, if you do, by commission - I can be busier if it would help. Do you only do holocaust/jewish stuff - is anyother thing "watched", I bet not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).


 * Sorry, but no, 159.105.80.63, I don't follow you everywhere. I came to the Hilberg page exactly to confirm if I could find the quoted numbers by you (or any number at all)here AFTER I saw what you wrote in the Criticism of Holocaust Denial talk page. I saw the same claim here and checked who had written it (two different and idependent wikieditors saying the same thing that I believe to be mistaken would drive me faster to my books than just one). Since it was the same person, well, I wanted to make sure you would read ONE of the requests for sources. Sorry if you felt harassed or anything, it was not my intention. Everytime I change something in one page, it is authomatically added to my watchlist--doesn't it happen with you as well? I don't understand what you mean about getting paid--I thought wikipedia was volunteer work. And yes, I have other stuff that I also monitor among my interests, as a matter of fact. But usually I don't find so many unquoted figures there as in the holocaust/holocaust denial pages.
 * Back to the subject, could you please give me the website with these numbers from the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation? Or wherever Hilberg quote the two different figures for Auschwitz? I wonder if there was any methodological change or if it is only a larger window for his estimates.--Ninarosa 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What discussion page did you say I was at talking about Hilberg? I searched the Holocaust Denial page and couldn't find that anyone had mentioned Hilberg at all, the archives only a few times. I would like to go check the page. Thanks. A search for "World Centre of Contempoary Jewish Documentation" will give you all the sites I say - mostly repeats of each other. What I originally said is what the sites say about the 1960 WCCJD - the nnmbers were for the entire war, not just Auschwitz. If you know or know anyone who could find out, what/who is the WCCJD and what happened to them. The Jewish Congress site was listed by my search engine but when I popped up the Jewish Congress site I couldn't find WCCJD mentione. Maybe they morphed into the Jewish Congress - however, in the 1960s they appeared to operate in Paris and Tel Aviv. A link to WCCJD would be appreciated or some information on their archives or successor, thanks. PS Hilberg in the Zundel trial seemed to not have heard of this group, but then he was under pressure and seemed to not remember a lot of things (XXXXX he has heard of a group called the Center for the Documentaion of Contemporary Jewry - which noone else seems to remember and can't find - or I only was directed by web search to MYJEWISHLEARNIG where it didn't have seem to have any CDCJ info. XXXXX-added later) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).

Sorry I found the page myself - it was the discussion page of the main Holocaust article. The holocaust denial site was locked - sort of. Nonmembers ( I don't know the term but I for one ) couldn't edit the discussion page for some time, but I noticed that some others seemed to be able to ( by the dates ). It appears we are both trying to find thee "real" WCCJD - the Jewish Congress may be the best bet. As far as I can see they appear to have disappeared - if they were a real group ( it seems they must have been ) they certainly weren't helping the cause.PSPS Another odd number - one source on the web says that Hilberg many years ago used the number 896,892 as the total deaths. Now he uses 5.1 million ( rounded number only ). 6,000,000 minus 896,892 = 5,103,108. Was the 896,892 the number who survived? The number 5.1 stays firm through all kinds of editions - I wonder how 5.1 is the most reliable number ( not withstanding explanations as to shuffling numbers between camps etc ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).

Although some people may freak over the source, but the IHR does have the summary record of Hilberg's 1985 testimony and cross-examination online:

http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/09hilberg.html

They also carry the record of Browning's stand in court which should be mentioned in his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To come up again about the Zündel trials: revisionists claim that Hilberg committed perjury in 1985, by claiming that Hitler gave orders for the extermination of the Jews. Furthermore, they claim that for the 1988 trial, Hilberg refused to appear, as he had committed perjury and he may have feared being charged with that crime. As revisionists tend to distort the truth in many ways, I wonder: is anything of these allegations true? And whether or not the allegation is correct, should anything of this matter be inserted in the article?Jeff5102 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Writing in haste is a harsh mistress
Removed IHR link, oops, I mistook the title to mean that it was Hilberg writing on Faurisson, not Faurisson writing on Hilberg (!). El_C


 * Sorry, was going to finish this tonight, I intended to, at minium give this enough basis as I did for tDotEJ, but a discussion at another (unrelated) article has drained all the energy out of me. Oh well, after a couple of years of never having been written, it can wait a little while. The DoTEJ can certainly be vastly expanded, so I ugre other editors to contribute to it. Ditto for this one, too.El_C

Bogdangiusca
Bogdangiusca, standrdization of the ext. links following the bib. or vice versa isn't a rule, it is just a standard practice. There is room for exception and in this article I believe it is warranted. Please cease reverting until we can arrive at a consensus. Also, note that the article is not finished yet. El_C

Nicely done
Nicely done, Buffyg! El_C 11:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link leads to the wrong person?
"..completing military service in World War II, writing his Ph.D. under the supervision of Franz Neumann." This is supposedly around the mid 20th-century but the link leads to someone who died in 1895. I don't know enough about either Neumann to fix it.

Polish-Romanian?
I added a tag to that statement, as there is no source to support that and no other reference within the article itself or the article's discussion page. Hilberg is obviously a Germanic name, so at least one of his ancestors must have had Germanic roots and a reverse migration from Romania is not supported by historical facts. I would like to see some sources to support that fact. There is a reference to this in a Haaretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907398.html), but while Haaretz is an excellent newspaper, it too needs to have its sources cited and cannot be independently cited as evidence, especially since I could not find any other reference. It could as well be that Haaretz copied from the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufitul (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have eliminated your request for a source for the Polish-Romanian ancestry once more. I wrote most of the article, and got that information from Yehuda Bauer's article in Ha'aretz. You may footnote the source from the Ha'aretz article if you think it requires one, but Yehuda Bauer is a great historian, was a personal friend of Hilberg's, and made his remark in a reliable source. Ha'aretz did not get the information from wiki, wiki, via my edit, got it from Ha'aretz. Your questioning the veracity of what Bauer states is legitimate as a personal suspicion: but Wiki does not require 'the truth' it requires simply Reliable Sources for textual edits, and both Bauer and Ha'aretz fit those requirements. If you independently do come up with detail that contradicts Bauer's testimony, by all means revise the text. Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The preeminent scholar
The page had previously stated that Hillberg is "the world's preeminent scholar" of the Nazi Holocaust, but no information was given to support this very debatable claim. I changed the wording to "a preeminent scholar" only to have my change undone by an unregistered user. I remedied this situation, but would like to hear opposing views in this forum. Thanks! Jules1236 (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The definite article ensues from the 'preeminent' which means 'excelling others'. Technically, in English, you cannot be called 'preeminent' in your field when several others are also 'preeminent' in the same field, as if they 'excelled each other'. It is thus a question of correct usage. Hilberg is dead, so 'is' = 'was'. I prefer 'doyen'. His book was pathfinding, bracketed for some decades in Germany as unpublishable, though influencing two generations of holocaust researchers profoundly. To question his historical eminence in the field, that he indeed opened up, and dominated that field, preeminently, requires citing figures who, over the period 1960-1990 acquired the repute he had among his peers. German sources I am familiar with constantly use the word 'Doyen'. I see nothing POV is giving the great man the credit his peers around the world accorded him.Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the word "preeminent" because you're right about the wording of that. When we have some kind of citation that he was the greatest Holocaust scholars of all time (I can't imagine what that citation would look like) then the article can say so.  While Hilberg was an undeniably brilliant man, it seems a bit of a stretch to insinuate that the genocide of 6 million people in the middle of the 20th Century in the middle of Western Europe would go undiscussed were it not for this one man.  Keep in mind that the Adolph Eichman trials and the publication of the Diary of Anne Frank were occuring around this same time, raising consciousness about the Holocaust in the minds of millions of people. Jules1236 (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't make caricatures. Hilberg wrote the seminal early post-war account of the Holocaust. He was regarded as the doyen in his field for many decades (easy to document). Later, Israel Gutman and Yehuda Bauer earned on their merits a similar title, as Hilberg aged, and published less. No one is insinuating anything. If you read his record, he had immense difficulties in publishing his work on the Holocaust at that early period. I don't care in this context what millions of people think. I care what scholars thought of Raul Hilberg, and even those who equal him in learning, like Bauer, bow their heads to the power and unique intelligence of his pathfinding work, and we lesser mortals should not niggle at a word that justly marks his achievement. I have fixed the introductory words that puzzle you on the analogy of a phrase I read a few days ago about another great scholar. I.e. Gordon Craig whom Geoff Eley in his The Goldhagen Effect: History, Memory, Nazism--Facing the German Past, writes of as 'doyen of the older generation of American historians of Germany’ (University of Michigan Press 2000 pp.154-5)Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this article from the LA Times?


 * "Raul Hilberg, who established himself as the preeminent scholar of the Holocaust with his monumental and still-controversial 1961 book "The Destruction of the European Jews," the first comprehensive study of the Nazis' genocidal campaign, died of lung cancer Saturday at a hospice in Williston, Vt. He was 81." http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/07/local/me-hilberg7


 * He is in fact considered the founder of the field. I think we could rightly give him the recognition he deserves by using the word "preeminent", backed up with this source. Shoplifter (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another two articles from reputed sources that uses the word "preeminent" to describe his status as a scholar of the Holocaust: http://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/11/books/managing-the-death-machine.html
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/sep/25/guardianobituaries.obituaries 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and change this since nobody seems to be in opposition. In addition, I think the term "postwar generation" is strange. Were there any Holocaust scholars at work during the war? The phrase does not seem to be widely used. Shoplifter (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why have you removed this book from further reading?

 * Edward Bernays: Crystallizing Public Opinion
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.27.216 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because you gave no reason for its inclusion. Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sentence makes very little sense to me
Perhaps wants some simplification?

"For Hilberg there was deep irony in the judgment since Arendt's opinion of his manuscript, that it dealt with things one no longer spoke about, had influenced the rejection slip he received from Princeton University Press following its submission, thus effectively denying him the prestigious auspices of a mainstream academic publishing house."

Syr0 (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No I disagree, it's perfect english and meaningful to me. Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the contents box?
There should be a contents menu with all the headlines. Where is it? I don't know how to add one. Shoplifter (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was removed on this edit, by adding the expression . See also Help:Section. It is sometimes more pleasant to remove a TOC, e.g. if most of the headlines are divides between the lower, supplemental sections of an article. In this case, I guess the user was bothered by the large white area following a thin intro. It should probably be thickened, by I restated the TOC. trespassers william (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hillberg and Lanzmann
I am french speaking and came to know Hillberg precisely through Lanzmann' "Shoah", in which he gives a lengthy interview. I was thus puzzled to read the following quote : "Hilberg was the only person not directly involved in the Holocaust interviewed for Claude Lanzmann's Shoah.". What do you mean by that, since precisely, he is interviewed in that film ? Thanks, it's a candid question !


 * I mean that he was the only person who wasn't directly involved (i.e., belonging to either group perpetrator-victim-bystander) in the Holocaust interviewed for the film. Shoplifter (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, I understand what you mean, but the phrasing is a bit awkward, as from what I read in this bio, Hillberg actually fled from Europe because he was under the threat of nazi persecution. You should probably state more simply that he is the only scholar interviewed in that documentary. Yours truly!

Intentionalist or Functionalist?
Perhaps Hilberg's mature views are most clearly stated in his last book, Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders (I am using the paperback HarperCollins edition of the book, published in 1992), pp.16-19. Hilberg writes, "Hitler was the supreme architect of the Jewish catastrophe. It was he who transformed the liquid ideas of 1940 into the hard reality of 1941.  Hitler made this final step the inexorable outcome of all the anti-Jewish measures taken over the years, and he forged Germany's diverse and decentralized administrative apparatus into a network of organizations acting in unison to the end that shooting operations, deportations, and gassings could happen simultaneously." Hilberg expresses the belief that the decision to annihilate the Jews crystallized in Hitler's mind sometime between February and May, 1941, and that "The thrust was the culmination of a process that in retrospect had emerged from an inner logic not recognizable even to the perpetrators.  It was primal, beyond rationality and irrationality.  Like the invasion of the Soviet Union, which had the quality of an unlimited assault, it was a 'reckoning.'  Because of that invasion it seemed possible and, increasingly, imperative.  If German men were going to die in this showdown, so would the Jews, those ancient adversaries who had survived all the wars and expulsions of the past." Hilberg believes the evidence, though hearsay, supports the conclusion that Hitler issued an oral order for the Final Solution sometime shortly after the invasion of the Soviet Union. He finds this hearsay evidence creditable for three reasons: (1) "A clarification [regarding the ultimate fate of the Jews] had been awaited with increasing urgency during the spring and early summer in 1941. By fall, however, there was motion everywhere." No one else could have moved with rapidity on his own. (2) "[Hitler's oral orders] were alluded or referred to over and over. They were used repeatedly to counter arguments put forward by German and non-German authorities for exemptions or delays." (3) Hitler reinforced his decision on several occasions, and remained preoccupied with Jews until the end of his life. In summary, it seems Hilberg felt that, as with his other wars, Hitler was the initiator and architect of the war on the Jews; and like the other wars, it became, as Hugh Trevor-Roper noted, a German national project, which touched upon the whole of German organized society. Thus, Hilberg was more of an intentionalist than a functionalist. 98.234.39.189 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The functionalist interpretation of the Holocaust differs from the intentionalist view articulated by historians such as Lucy Dawidowicz. Dawidowicz has written: "Through a maze of time, Hitler's decision of November 1918 led to Operation Barbarossa. There never had been any ideological deviation or wavering determination. In the end only the question of opportunity mattered." Thus for intentionalists, Hitler planned to exterminate the Jews when he came to power in 1933, and he did not waver.


 * Hilberg pointed to the fact there was no coherent plan to exterminate the Jews when Hitler came to power. In an interview, Hilberg said: "You go back even to the beginnings of the Nazi party and find that they are still thinking in terms of the emigration of the Jews —there was a plan called the Madagascar plan, which was actually a thought in Poland and even in France (Madagascar was a French possession), maybe all of the Jews could be shipped there. So this idea was still floating in the German foreign office and all the way up to Hitler as late as 1940, especially 1940 when France surrendered. However, when the War did not end as the Germans had hoped it would with the West (they were already making preparations to attack the Soviet Union), the serious thought of annihilating the Jews emerged. The earliest indication of this is a meeting Hitler had with a bunch of party members early in February of 1941. He had by then not quite formed the decision, but it was on the way." A Conversation with Raul Hilberg Hilberg and other historians agree that after the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, and the deployment of Einsatzgruppen, exterminationist policies were enacted with mass shootings of Jews. Hilberg and others question whether there was an exterminationist policy prior to spring 1941. The quote from Hilberg you reproduce is consistent with this position. Mick gold (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am the person who posted the previous argument that Hilberg was MORE of an intentionalist than a functionalist. Certainly Hilberg was no "pure" or "extreme" intentionalist like Lucy Dawidowicz. On page 16 of the book quoted above, Hilberg says, "At the beginning of February 1941, during a meeting of old party comrades, Hitler was asked what he intended to do with the Jews. He replied reflexively, 'Madagascar,' and on being reminded the island was far away, admitted the project was not achievable....Now he had other thoughts, 'less friendly.'"  Hence, in this quote, Hilberg confirms what he said in the conversation you quote. In the main article, the two interpretive schools are characterized thus: Intentionalists see "the Holocaust as Hitler's determined and premeditated plan, which he implemented as the opportunity arose",[40] while functionalists see "the Final Solution as an evolution that occurred when other plans proved untenable".[40] Intentionalists argue that the initiative for the Holocaust came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy.

According to the first sentence, Hilberg was definitely more functionalist. According to the second sentence (along with Hilberg's view that Hitler was the supreme architect of the Holocaust), Hilberg would definitely seem to be more intentionalist (in that the overwhelming initiative came from Hitler). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caruthers Sebastian (talk • contribs) 10:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Raul Hilberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120825120401/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=202 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=202

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Raul Hilberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822060728/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/neumann08152007.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann08152007.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=202

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Odd confession from censored pbs show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q51wqEE1fM

Heres the man himself, surprised this famous censored confession is not mentioned on the page at all.

In 1976, I went to a small town in Bavaria, Ludwigsburg, which has the headquarters for investigations of so-called National Socialist crimes, an office maintained by the provinces of the Federal Republic of Germany. About thirty prosecutors were housed in that particular building, and I went there to study court records, various affidavits, and other materials. But one afternoon, they said, “We’re having a party today, would you join us?” Why, yes. They said, “we have one bottle of wine for each person.” (laughter from the audience). And after a while I chanced to talk to the deputy chief of that office, and I said to him this: I’ve been troubled by one question. And I’m afraid that I went into print with something that isn’t entirely accurate. And that is the role of Adolf Hitler himself in the annihilation of the Jewish people in Europe. Now, I know that you are only concerned here with live individuals, and that you do not investigate the dead.

But still … what do you think?

“Ach,” he said, “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

And he laughed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.83.21 (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No confession there. This is just a misrepresentation by extracting a section of something longer without context. Typical holocaust denial BS. Zerotalk 13:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Only someone unfamiliar with Hilberg's work could spin that to be a 'confession'. Crap.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Grammar
"prompted his research into the Holocaust, a term for the genocidal destruction of the Jews which Hilberg personally disliked" To impute to this the intimation Hilberg disliked Jews rather than the word Holocaust is to fail to grasp one of the fundamental distinctions in English usage: were that true, one would have had to have written 'the Jews whom Hilberg personally disliked'. Further the punctuation allows no confusion because 'which' refers to 'the term', not to the Jews. Jeezus Kerrist. Don't they learn granma to kids in skools these daze?Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that grammatically, the meaning is unambiguous. However, the sentence is a bit too long to read comfortably, at least for me. I have done two things:
 * Split the sentence into two.
 * Remove the clause "for the genocidal destruction of the Jews". This is a strange place to introduce what the Holocaust was. The Holocaust is already wikilinked above, and the paragraph above talks about the Nazi genocide.
 * Feel free to revert/discuss/edit. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Raul Hilberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ushmm.org/memoriam/detail.php?content=hilberg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707133129/http://www.americanradicalthefilm.com/documents/AmericanRadical_Cineaste_Review.pdf to http://www.americanradicalthefilm.com/documents/AmericanRadical_Cineaste_Review.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915040640/http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein08222007.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein08222007.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Raul Hilberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ushmm.org/memoriam/detail.php?content=hilberg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612203909/http://images.zeit.de/text/1995/09/Schwere_moralische_Schuld to http://images.zeit.de/text/1995/09/Schwere_moralische_Schuld

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft Age
Hello. I'm confused about his draft age and military service. He would have been 16 in 1942? Is it implied he served in 1944? Anyone know about this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:3:10AF:F000:0:0:465 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Or drafted in 1944, served in 1944 and 1945? Or just 1945? 2001:18E8:3:10AF:F000:0:0:465 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Expunging Finkelstein
e.g.here. The edit summary is flawed. What on earth is meant by suggesting Finkelstein is a 'non-mainstream writer'? His most recent book 2017 was published by the University of California Press. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And again, 'There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch'. It is not CounterPunch's reliability, but Finkelstein's, who like any major figure in his field, is free to choose whatever venue he likes to write his views, or in this case memoir. No one has ever shown Finkelstein to be an unreliable source for anything factual. To the contrary he gets into trouble because he is an historian famous/notorious for showing how slipshod with the facts are newspapers, academics, and opinionists in regard to the I/P conflict.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)