Talk:A Terrible Revenge

message: This is nothing but an advertisement for a booktitel of a "historian" known for very revisionist positions in Germany. Has nothing to do with NPOV, has nothing to do with serious enquiry of Prussian history. The whole discussion belongs to some other place, f.e. "Ethnic policies at the end of World War II" or something like that. There you could discuss the book and name it among others, but not alone like this. 
Therefore, I propose to delete this article (which does not deserve the name). Jesusfreund 11:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost any published book is sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. The book don't have to be NPOV. --Wikimol 11:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a template for articles about individual books ? Lysy 11:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: Why do we have such articles? Or Stubs I should say.  They will never be anything more, unless we were to add reviews of the book or excerpts from the book.  I can't see why if this is to remain a stub that it doesn't just redirect to the article on the author, with all the information in this stub there. Is there a precedent? What is the policy? --Chammy Koala 21:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An article about a book is not doomed to stay as a stub. It may contain a summary of its content. Excerpts are not really necessary. I am reading various works of Zayas now and I feel that they may serve a basis of a number of other articles. In particular, NKVD massacres of prisoners may be significantly expanded. While in many places his rhetoric is clearly revisionist (at least I see why it is perceived as such), he collects may factual data (regardless how this data may be interpreted). Mikkalai 22:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question on stubs 

message: This book contains testimony and information I haven't encountered elsewhere.
If anyone is serious about investigating a crime, would they listen to people who discourage them from reading eyewitness testimony, or would they go after such testimony?
As for dismissing stuff, that can only be done after examining it.
What's in the book is important - and I prefer to know what's in it, rather than hear someone's opinion about it (that's what Wikipedia is supposed to support, right?).
Information is either true or it isn't.
The truth can be arrived at with thinking, serious effort (involving time and energy investment) and scientific method.
So labeling it as "revisionist" is simply an attempt to dismiss it and not deal with it, and that won't work.
I, Johannes van Aggelen, reviewed this fine book for the Netherlands International Law Review. I am getting a bit irritated by this talk of "revisionism".  What is the role of a historian but to review history, ask new questions, interview witnesses and participants of diplomatic conferences, provide new perspectives, reject legends, correct old canards, etc.  de Zayas interviewed hundreds of victims for this book and also participants at the Potsdam conference, including Robert Murphy, James Riddelberger, Sir Dennis Allen and Sir Geoffrey Harrison.  This is what good analysis and interpretation of history requires.  Moreover, from the international criminal law aspect, de Zayas surveys the relevant Nuremberg principles with regard to Nazi expulsions of Poles and Frenchmen, which were deemed to constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Similarly, the ethnic cleansing that occurred in the former Yugoslavia has been found to constitute crimes against humanity, as the recent ICJ judgment of 26 February 2007 (by the way, the longest judgment in the history of the ICJ) confirms.  Now, the question must be addressed whether the expulsion of 15 million German civilians from their 700 year old homelands in East Prussia, Pomernia, Silesia, East Brandenburg etc. 1945-48 was somehow different from other instances of ethnic cleansing and thus compatible with international law.  This is an important question, and you cannot label a scholar a "revisionist" simply for taking up this hitherto neglected issue and attempting to formulate a cogent answer.  JvA.
here the review in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 31 July 2006, page 6
"Fast ein Klassiker
Vertreibungsforscher de Zayas
31. Juli 2006 
Bei der Darstellung von Alfred M. de Zayas handelt es sich um die Neuauflage der 1986 erstmals publizierten "Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung der Deutschen aus dem Osten", deren englische Originalausgabe bereits ein Jahr zuvor unter dem Titel "A Terrible Revenge. The Ethnic Cleaning of the East European Germans" in New York erschien. Der Autor gehört seit dem Erscheinen seines vielbeachteten Klassikers "Nemesis at Potsdam" (London 1977), welcher in Deutschland erst im vergangenen Jahr unter dem Titel "Die Nemesis von Potsdam" in einer veränderten Neuausgabe herauskam, unzweifelhaft zu den führenden Fachmännern auf dem Gebiet einer vor allem völkerrechtlich orientierten Vertreibungsforschung. Ihm gelang es zudem stets, auch außerhalb der wissenschaftlichen Zunft einen großen Leserkreis zu gewinnen.
Man geht wohl kaum fehl in der Annahme, wenn man die Neuauflage als eine Art Antwort auf Veröffentlichungen wie Michael Brumliks Streitschrift "Wer Sturm sät. Die Vertreibung der Deutschen" betrachtet. Der Band ist nämlich, wie die Vorsitzende des Bundes der Vertriebenen (BdV), Erika Steinbach, in ihrem Geleitwort andeutet und de Zayas in seinen "Schlußfolgerungen" dezidiert bekennt, auch als Beitrag zur kontroversen Diskussion über das vom BdV angestrebte "Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen" in Berlin zu lesen. Der Autor ergreift hierbei deutlich Partei im Sinne der BdV-Position. Die Vorzüge der "Anmerkungen" zeichnen jetzt die deutlich erweiterte Neuauflage aus: Es stellt ein im besten Sinne des Wortes populärwissenschaftliches, mit 120 Fotos reichbebildertes Kompendium dar, das sich an ein breites, historisch interessiertes Publikum wendet. Es vermittelt anschaulich, gut lesbar, quellenorientiert und ohne Polemik Grundwissen zu einem nach wie vor wichtigen Thema."
MATTHIAS STICKLER
As for "self-promotion", you'll find some good examples of that on the other side of the isle.Johan77 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep 

message: http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04262006-071805/unrestricted/larson_kevin_m_200605_ma.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xx236 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a Dutchman, and I read this book after "Nemesis at Potsdam" -- How true // retribution and counter-retribution only bring misery to all, an eye for an eye ultimately makes everybody blind. I can only say that if everybody had realized the horror of the expulsions, maybe the horrors of the Yugoslav ethnic cleansing would have been preventable. But the crimes of the expulsion of the Germans were ignored. This book should be part of the curriculum in every high school and university.82.217.225.209 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP added the neutrality warning without any explanation in the discussion page. There is enough pro and con in the article and on the discussion page.  193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree with IP 193.  A Terrible Revenge is a most remarkable book, well researched, honest and compassionate.  It should be required reading in highschools and colleges. 217.168.42.242 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: Both paragraphs inform about reviews, why the division?Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reviews & critics can be merged.  By the way, the book is cited favourably in a recent article,István Pogány, "International Human Rights Law, Reparatory Justice and the Re-Ordering of Memory in Central and Eastern Europe", in Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 10-3 (2010) pp. 397-428 at 404.193.239.220.249 (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews vs. Critics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A Terrible Revenge. 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/20070926223446/http://www.fff.org/freedom/0795f.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/0795f.asp
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) 22:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified