Talk:Germany Must Perish!

message: No consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Germany Must Parish
See this forum posting which asks when this book was published. Unanswered when last I looked. Andrewa 22:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus to delete 

message: I do not agree with removing material simply because the figure in question has controversial associations. However, it is Irving, and while he is a wealth of information, the fool showed the court that he misrepresented facts on several occasions. While he is among the first historians to have their footnotes examined under such intense scrutiny, anyone has the ability to do what the court did if they really wanted to. It just requires some extra effort. So, if anyone has a question about a wikipedian's references - or the references in the source the wikipedian cites - they should do some research on their own. 
In conclusion, if anybody can find notes relating to where Irving got the information, please add the original information to this article. If Irving had done his job in the first place, we wouldn't have to be doing this...but it does make you wonder how many historians are really playing by the rules. I'm sure he isn't the only one who is guilty of misusing his status.--68.45.21.204 07:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning the removal of David Irving

message: This is getting long so I'll start anew. Please suggest a different wording for my introduction. As is, the publication "was used" by Holocaust deniers. Where did they go? (You didn't purge them, did you?)
--68.45.21.204 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Well, since I get taken to task earlier, a few comments....
First, what's the evidence that Kaufman "inspired" Nizer?
Second, all it takes to put an ad in the "New York Times" is money. The simple placement of an ad does not guarantee attention. Any advertiser will tell you that.
Third, there is practically no discussion of Kaufman after the original reviews (until the Nazis gave it a burst of publicity).
Fourth, in checking American libraries, I find less than 100 that own copies. Not much sign of influence there.
There were, in fact, a variety of proposals for what to do with Germany after the war, some rather vehement. However, none became official policy of Allied governments, whereas Nazi anti-Semitic plans were realized.
In sum, Kaufman was an insignificant figure who would have been entirely forgotten had not the Nazis found his book to be useful fodder for their propaganda.
For those interested in more detail, see my article "The Argument for Genocide in Nazi Propaganda," <I>Quarterly Journal of Speech,</I> February 2005. If you email me, I might send you a pdf of the thing.  Bytwerk 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really useful info, it is hard to research this book, because it is basically only notable to the Nazis and their supporters.  Perhaps you can put this stuff in the article, and source your article on it as well? It would be terrific. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm not too interested in trying to edit this at the moment, but I will add the article I mention to the article bibliography shortly, and if anyone is interested, I'll email them a pdf of the  piece, which has a lot more information on Kaufman's book and its influence. Bytwerk 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad, we need more published experts willing to make changes in areas of their expertise. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of Kaufman 

message: "which advocates the genocide of the German nation. Kaufman founded the Argyle Press of Newark, New Jersey, USA, in order to publish his sentiments.
However, the book was most notably used by Nazi Germany as propaganda to allege that the Jews were plotting against the country
"
judging by the first paragraph and by the book itself it was not simply propaganda. this whole article is simply playing dumb and being soft on the jews, as always.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.219.109 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: this keeps getting remove:
In a 1933 newspaper with the headline Judea Declares War on Germany, calling for boykott, it was also stated that "Fourteen million Jews dispersed throughout the world have banded together as one man to declare war on the German persecutors of their co-religionists". (71.137.196.30 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and this will keep getting removed in the future. --20% 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously- in 1933- Judea Declares War against Germany - Full Text link 

message: Shouldn't we provide a link to the full text of the book. I have it, that this is online but I'm not sure whether these texts are accurate i.e.: http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.html --41.16.157.246 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Full text is at Wikipsurce: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish! -- Matthead  Discuß   23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full text of the book 

message: Sorry, but I couldn't find an article about Theodore N. Kaufman himself in the wikipedia!--Wisamzaqoot (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then make one!--Auric (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article about Theodore N. Kaufman

message: The section "American Reaction" states the following:
:The book was written by a non-notable author, and was self published; nevertheless, despite this, it was taken seriously by both public and serious agencies in the US, so serious that it was the subject of news reporting and Time, New York Times, and Washington post chose to publish reviews of it.
But this contradicts the source, which is quoted in the next paragraph as saying: 'reviews were a mix of "straight reporting and skepticism."' Reading the source, it is clear that Berel Lang is saying that American reviewers looked at this book as something "madcap". I am going to change our article to reflect this. GabrielF (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched the NYTimes and Washington Post archives and could not find any actual reviews of this book. For the Post, all I found was Kaufman's own advertisement and for the Times I saw a brief mention in a three page list of new books (one sentence plus price and author info). There were articles in both papers from the end of 1941 about the Nazis using the book as a pretext for actions against Jews in Hannover. GabrielF (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear the source has been abused; thanks for fixing that. I've done a copyedit of the article, and some re-organization of the material, but it clearly needs more work. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  taken seriously? 

message: The book did NOT proffer extermination of Germans as a solution. It read, "Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out."
:  If you are going to take complete control of the article, at least READ the work before you write about it. 216.189.209.130 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed reference to genocide of Germans.

message: I reverted the most recent edit — the link does in fact work for me.  And it includes the only interview I know of with Kaufman — making it a useful source.  I'll tinker with the fact that it is under the American reaction section.  Bytwerk (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you need to do something, because it's a primary source and it's not a "reaction". Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources aren't ruled out — and this isn't the only source in the article.  Since it is a published source, and the only interview that seems to be out there, it is a useful reference.  I agree, however, that it is not a reaction.  I'll think about how to recast that (or someone may beat me to it). Thanks for the suggestion. Bytwerk (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, did the tinkering.  Better? Bytwerk (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring Canadian Citation

message: I propose enabling automatic archiving for this talk page. 
I don't think we really need comments from 2004. 
If there are no objections, I will add something like 
:{{User:MiszaBot/config 
:|algo = old(60d)
:|archive = Talk:Germany Must Perish!/Archive %(counter)d
:| counter = 1
: maxarchivesize = 200K
:
--Boson (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic archiving

message: First, there is no need to write "The NSDAP is said to have..."  They did.  In many, many places.  See the references.  Second, "axiom" is the wrong word.  The Nazis used it as evidence, not as an axiom.  The bottom quotation that was cut is relevant, but probably not essential.  Bytwerk (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Explanation

message: I took out a sentence that made a variety of dubious statements.  For example, it did not coincide with other Anglo-American plans to dismember Germany (such plans came later, and the U.S. wasn’t yet in the war).  The German population probably wasn’t mulling all that much about it. And the U.S. sanctions were surely unfriendly toward Germany, but they weren’t tantamount to a declaration of war. Bytwerk (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Edit Explanation

message: Volunteer Marek claims Nizer's work is "a primary source for Nizer" and has removed reference to Nizer's work on that basis. It's true that Nizer's book is a primary source on Nizer. However, this article is not about Nizer or his book, it's about Kaufman's book and Nizer's book is an appropriate secondary source with respect to that subject.
Even if Nizer were a primary source in the context of this article (it's not) there's no blanket ban on primary source in articles. According to WP:PSTS "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." --Mox La Push (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is not about this article subject though. It's about Nizer. Specifically: "In his 1944 book What to do with Germany, Nizer accepted collective punishment ...." This is about Nizer hence it's a primary source. The preceding sentence is just some lame excuse to try and get Nizer into this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not about Nizer. The section where the edit appeared is entitled "American reactions to the book". The text citing and quoting Nizer is about his reaction to Kaufman's proposal just as the Time magazine article responds to Kaufman's book. Nizer's work is a secondary source according to WP:PSTS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." --Mox La Push (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for responding to the Third Opinion Request. --Mox La Push (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nizer's book is an appropriate secondary source 

message: If any ethnic group of people today proposed the forced sterilization of any other ethnic group of people then that would be regarded as genocide according to United Nations definition.
Goebbels presented Kaufman's genocidal book to Hitler who then introduced the yellow star to identify people who had declared war on Germany, and who had previously changed sides and restarted WW1 at the end of 1916 after Germany had offered the most generous peace offer in history. Moreover, as I understand it, 240 of the 300 attendees at the Versailles treaties, the least generous impositions in history, were Jewish - is this correct?.
Germany did not start WW1 - it was the last to mobilize. Germany did not start WW2. After Poland attacked Germany, Germany defended itself and three days later seven countries declared war against Germany. Note that the mainstream media never mentions that Poland attacked Czechoslovakia in March 1939 and possessed the world's largest army of 1.7 million troops (Germany had 1.1 million troops). Nor does the media mention the approx. 60,000 Germans who were murdered before the war, in the region of Germany given to Poland by a Versailles treaty. The Germans complained to the League of Nations about these murders and 'ethnic cleansing' without success, and subsequently abandoned membership in it (after the US left it).
Regarding the supposedly genocidal Germans, 150,000 Jews were members of the German military, including 171 high ranking officers (Generals, Admirals, Colonels) and the second member of the SS, Emile Maurice was known by all to be Jewish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.74 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) How did you jump from a book written by Theodore Kaufman, an individual, to "if any ethnic group of people today proposed.."? 2) what is your evidence that the jewish star was only introduced after Hitler was informed by Kaufman's book? 3) mobilization within one's own borders is not an act of war. many nations do it as part of annual military drills. 4) Poland did not attack Germany in WW2, the Gleiwitz Incident was a false flag operation. 5) 60,000 Germans were NOT murdered before the war, this is a neo nazi fairy tale/hoax. The "Bloody Sunday" (Bromberger Blutsonntag) happened AFTER the German invasion of Poland, and only involved a few thousand dead, part of which were part of a Volksdeutsche paramilitary unit (Selbstschutz) which had attacked the Polish Army to help the invading Wehrmacht. 6) Equally, your "150,000 Jews fought in the Wehrmacht" is another neo nazi lie. Stop watching youtube videos as "education". The overwhelming majority of these were Mischlinge (half-jews, quarter-jews, eight-jews) and so on. Not Jews, in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:5080:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow star 

message: Hitler, as a Catholic, who stated that he would not tolerate anti-Christian views in the NSDAP, was opposed to euthanasia until he received a letter from parents of a severely handicapped child (blind, deaf, dumb and with other disabilities) who needed constant supervision. At the time he was voted into office the majority of Germans were in a very poor state after 13 years under the glorious Weimar Republic and he wished to improve the health of the nation. He wrote that it would be meritorious and prevent ongoing suffering if a couple who suffered from genetic imperfections would forgo having their own child but instead adopt and raise a healthy child.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.119 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum. Please restrict your remarks to specific suggestions for article improvements, and omit your own opinions of the topic. See WP:TALKPAGE. Zerotalk 11:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sterilization of mentally ill/handicapped