Talk:Antony Beevor

message: Somebody seems to have confused the title (on this page and several others) of Beevor's Berlin book with a recent German film detailing the same events. The former is The Fall of Berlin, 1945, and the latter is titled Downfall.  -- Fletcher Moore, 9.26.05
:: Beevor's website  clearly says the title of the book is Berlin - The Downfall 1945 - Johnbull 23:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, my copy is entitled The Fall of Berlin 1945. You can also see on Amazon  that this title does see at least some use. I don't know what the cause of the discrepancy is, but I will edit the article to reflect the fact that the book has two different titles. SS451 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The explanation is simple: the UK and US editions have different titles, which is not uncommon.  I've edited the notes to reflect that. Ragout 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I have to ask this question, as it isn't mentioned anywhere else; has Beevor got any qualifications in history? It says he went too Winchester, which is an English secondary school, then to Sandhurst, which is the training college where every British army officer cadet goes to be trained how to be an officer. Passing oput from Sandhurst does not give one an academic qualification.
It also says he's 'professor of history' at Birkbeck College, without saying how he became a professor.
It would be really useful to know what qualifications Beevor actually has, as there are serious doubts expressed on here as to the objectivity and credibility of his work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.234.204 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not mention any academic qualifications. Having been an officer seems to qualify him to lecture and write on military matters. Besides, everyone has the right to write books on matters he chooses. Ontologix (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, anyone has that right, but publishing a book on science doesn't make you a scientist, just like publishing your own personal narrative of history, in no way makes you a historian. Beevor is not actually a historian, he is a populist author. And there are several publications that mention how he gets a lot of things wrong. For example Beevor, published an article in the Guardian saying why Putin should be at Auschwitz, in it he claims that the Soviets did not even mention jews at Majdanek.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/20/vladimir-putin-auschwitz-memorial-ceremony-soviet-union-liberating-camps But Beevor, not being a historian, and not actually reading sources that doesn't suit him, failed to spot, that they actually did. https://www.academia.edu/10326818/_Too_gruesome_to_be_fully_taken_in_Konstantin_Simonov_s_The_Extermination_Camp_as_Holocaust_Literature Though people who feature Beevor, is more or less pretending he is a historian, and any criticism comes from Russia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlGGHamilton (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beevor's educational qualifications 

message: Beevor's book Berlin: the Downfall 1945 has proven controversial among the Russians, who deny the allegation of mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers with disdain. 
I, rediska (let that be my nick), have surfed the web in search of serious reviews for Beevor's books, but haven't found any satisfactory results. If someone here is familiar with the topic and knowledgeable enough to give a fair and unbiased evaluation of the reliability of Beevor's information, I'd be grateful. Please, do not assume that he is correct or incorrect, do not assume that "the Russian troops hated Germans, so of course they took revenge", do not assume that "it's impossible, because according to regulations, a Russian soldier would be immediatly shot for plundering". Simply stick to the evidence, don't comment on what is a crime against the memmory of the soldiers/rape victims. Thank you.
  
I did read his book on the Fall of Berlin about three years ago.  On a casual reading, I thought that the book was even handed and also well documented.  However, I did not perform a deep investigation into the footnotes.  The documentation of mass rape committed by the Red Army is documented by other well respected authors.  Mr. Beevor does take the time to explain the psychology of the reasons behind this, without excusing it.  He also makes the effort to document the fact that much of the Red Army did comport itself professionally despite horrendous fighting conditions.  Just my 2 cents.
Ber06122 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't talk here on behalf of "every serous historian". All you said is nothing more than propaganda, and similarly there's no real evidence of "mass rapes commited by the Red Army" besides poorly sourced Cold War propaganda books. The problem with Beevor is (at the very least) that he jumps on global conclusions far too quickly, based upon cherrypicked sources about some individual incidents. Anything contradicting his agenda is disregarded. Every interpretation of events is one-sided. When mythmaker notes a number of abortions going up in 1945 he immediately screams "mass rape!!1!11" Now, when serious historian looks into the case, he remembers that abortions were criminal offence in Nazi Germany with the only exception made for the women raped by the 'racially inferior', so about the only way to get a legal abortion was to blame some rampaging untermensch for any unwanted pregnancy (and when you have millions of displaced persons roaming the roads you don't need any dedicated army of rapists to get a lot of them). Then serious historian at least mentions this possibility in his work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.214.41 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of Beevor 

message: I deleted a reference to Beevor's nonfiction book Stalingrad as being co-authored by his wife, Artemis Cooper (her name did not appear on the page). I have a copy of the book in front of me--although the copyright page does list both their names, there is no other indication that she was a co-author. Indeed, in the preface Beevor refers to her as his "editor of first resort," but makes no mention of co-authorship. Based on that, I think this is simply an error, so it is now gone. SS451 17:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalingrad Not Co-Authored 

message: Antony Beevor's writing is unreliable historically inaccurate garbage. A lot of it is non-fiction. He exaggerates, generalizes, and makes things up. I believe he does this to make his books more popular with readers who don't know much about WW2 and believe all his writings, which makes his books sell better.
:Well, that's your opinion, and I suppose you're entitled to it. This kind of thing really doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page, though. This page is for discussing how to improve this article. SS451 21:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.amazon.com/Stalingrad-Fateful-1942-1943-Antony-Beevor/dp/0140284583 - It appears the book's title was added to for some markets. The reader is not supposed to ignore the German invasion, because the book discusses it in depth (the book begins before the invasion).  But of course, seeing as you've read the book, you know this. Geoff B 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthony Beevor 

message: The main page seems to have lots of information about the authors lies and anti soviet bias, but without quote's or citation I feel the page should be changed? Adamshappy
I deleted the reference to Beevor as controversial, since no source was cited for that claim. I deleted the description of him as a publicist with strong anti-Soviet bias also--this language is simply PoV, and cannot be in a Wikipedia article. I also deleted what was, to my knowledge, a complete inaccurate version of the claims he makes in his books regarding the rape of German women by Red Army soldiers. If the person who inserted this can find a citation as to where Beevor claims the nearly all German women were raped, it can go back in, but I don't think such a citation exists, because it's not a claims he has made.
If you think Beevor is dishonest, you need to find actual examples of that, not lie about what he actually says in order to make him appear dishonest. SS451 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to note that the reference to Beevor as "controversial" is back on the main page again (first sentence).  I agree, I read that comment and failed to find anything really controversial about him in the article.  Needs to be supported or deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.187.236 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Shouldn't place of birth be included in the basic introduction of the author? At least in the bio?
--Esalen 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: It seems to me that the criticism almost all centrers around his writing about rape by the Red Army. I have (re)added comment to this effect, with sources, which is not POV but factua - this IS the criticism. 
I have also given some sourced background on just why this is a sensitive subject likely to attract acrimony. The Germany are particularly sensitive about claiming to be victims, and the Russians particularly sensitive about the heroic Red Army, which means that this topic has been a taboo on both sides.
::If you're going to cite a book, then you must cite the book itself, author, ISBN and page number, etc, not a review of the book.  Additionally, if a source that was cited earlier supports a statement made later in the article, then that source must be cited again.  You can't just leave it unsourced.  Geoff B 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note "cannot be seen as victims in the same way as Jews, Poles and Russians" does not, not at all!, imply that they were not victims at all. --2001:A61:20FC:C01:E406:DC0B:17E9:B90B (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I have put his books into a table to make it look more professional and presentable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Table 

message: That he is very critical of portaying Germans as victims.
Q:Despite all of this can Germans speak for themselfs they were victims of the war ?
Beevor:Germans were victims of the war they themselfs started. Raped German women were part of society that overwhelmingly supported Hitler and wanted the war. The entry of Red Army was consequence of that. That is why Germans can't say for themselfs that they are the same victims of war like Jews, Poles or Russians.
I think that do to use of his work to depict German fate due to lost war, his opinion regardng the overall matter should be in the article and I will input it in neutral way. Of course I am open to debate how the final form should look like.--Molobo (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should be added that for all his work he made a definitive statement. 

message: There are some pictures of him taken in Oslo this afternoon here: :Commons:Category:Antony_Beevor. --Bep (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antony Beevor. 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/20120110165018/http://www.antonybeevor.com/biography/biography.htm to http://www.antonybeevor.com/biography/biography.htm
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) 02:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified