Talk:Jörg Friedrich (author)

message: The first part of the article is a mess. Could someone take care of the grammar, get the sentences straight and erase parts which are not important or just confusing?
Does it matter what some English conservatives call Friedrich (trotzkist or whatever)?
Who is the Chancellor Friedrich is connected to? 
Does it matter that he's "well connected"?
71.247.157.179 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory paragraph

message: We have to explain what that means. Anybody a clue? Not affiliated with any academic research center?  Not fully accepted within the academic community? Publishing where?
71.247.157.179 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "A historian without a university paycheck" <http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Long.html>BGinOC (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "independent historian"

message: Here is the next one: " with a former NATO General and friend of Friedrich's accusing Churchill of war crimes" Does anyone know the name of the General? Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nato General

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The attempt to discredit a respected historian's work merely because
a)  He describes historical events from the perspective of those human beings who were affected by them, and
b)  Because he raises the specter of the Allies having possibly done something wrong in the campaign against Nazi Germany
is symptomatic of an all-or-nothing, black-and-white view of history that has no place in rational discourse. Put another way, the first victim of war is truth.
I've read "The Fire" (Hello! It's been out in English for more than a year!) and while I think there are many organizational flaws in the work and also some questionable translations and terminology, its accounts of what actually happened on the ground in scores of German cities bears reading for all who question the morality of weapons of mass destruction, which the Allied bombers certainly were.
Nowhere does Friedrich remotely suggest that Nazi Germany was not the aggressor and prime culprit in WWII and its associated horrors. What he does argue, and this only indirectly, is that indiscriminate bombing of civilian centers inevitably kills many human beings -- and destroys much cultural infrastructure -- without necessarily furthering the supposed legitimate military/political objective. This brings to mind Robert McNamara's conclusion about the bombing of North Vietnam:  That the means, and the destruction, were out of proportion to the miltary/political objective.
To tar and feather Friedrich with the term "revisionist" seems to imply that historical accounts should never be revised, and that whatever the most widely accepted view is must be inviolate. Nothing more intellectually dishonest can be imagined.
Sca (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this looks like a smearjob to me. I mean a section on "other related historians" which talks mostly about David Irving? I would like to know if any of the cited sources actually describe Irving and Freidrich as "related," or if that is just some Wikipedian working in some original-research FUD. <eleland/talkedits> 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extremely POV

message: === Part I ===
The article said:
However, the discussion surrounding his books on the allied bombing campaign has led to a reappraisal of his position and a re-examination of his earlier books.  His criticism of post-war Germany and denazification, which have previously been understood as being a criticism of power-politics and the selective prosecution of those not useful to the new administration can now be seen as a direct criticism of interference in German national sovereignty:
:"Jörg Friedrich describes the denazification program as a form of political purge with no basis in international law. The Hague rules of land warfare do not authorize an occupier to undertake any such interference in the enemy's domestic affairs." Law and war: an American story, Peter Maguire, Columbia University Press, 2001 , Chapter 4 page 146, (according to its prefix, Friedrich helped considerably with this book)
Once taken in this light, alongside Friedrich's recent admission that he is a "revisionist historian"Germany's forgotten victims, Luke Harding, The Guardian, 22 October 2003, retrieved 13 January 2005 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1068437,00.html,  Friedrich's modern books and the choices and omissions he has made in them have been seen to take on a rather different meaning. 
Most of the claims of these paragraphs are unsourced, constituting original research aiming at passing judgment. See also the many complaints above.  -- Zz (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transferred text 

message: The article said:
However, the discussion surrounding his books on the allied bombing campaign has led to a reappraisal of his position and a re-examination of his earlier books.  His criticism of post-war Germany and denazification, which have previously been understood as being a criticism of power-politics and the selective prosecution of those not useful to the new administration can now be seen as a direct criticism of interference in German national sovereignty:
:"Jörg Friedrich describes the denazification program as a form of political purge with no basis in international law. The Hague rules of land warfare do not authorize an occupier to undertake any such interference in the enemy's domestic affairs." Law and war: an American story, Peter Maguire, Columbia University Press, 2001 , Chapter 4 page 146, (according to its prefix, Friedrich helped considerably with this book)
Once taken in this light, alongside Friedrich's recent admission that he is a "revisionist historian"Germany's forgotten victims, Luke Harding, The Guardian, 22 October 2003, retrieved 13 January 2005 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1068437,00.html,  Friedrich's modern books and the choices and omissions he has made in them have been seen to take on a rather different meaning. 
Most of the claims of these paragraphs are unsourced, constituting original research aiming at passing judgment. See also the many complaints above.  -- Zz (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part I 

message: The article further stated: By choosing as his standard of comparison for Dresden the bombing of London, Friedrich avoids covering the topics of Stalingrad, where 40,000 Soviet civilians are known to have been killed in one day of German bombing, Leningrad where approximately a million Soviet civilians were killed or with Warsaw where, 200,000 Polish civilians were killed in the Warsaw Uprising, often in ground based attacks which used a similar mixture of explosive and incendiary weapons to those used by the allies in Germany, but, by contrast to Dresden, where general areas were targeted, also involved deliberate and selective targeting of clearly marked hospitals with dive bombers and ground forces.
This is an attempt at giving a historical base for the evaluation -- or rather judgment -- of Friedrich's work. In the form presented, however, it is original research and has no place in Wikipedia. It has been marked for two years without action. -- Zz (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part II 

message: The article also used weasel words without any for placing him close to Irving: Comparisons between the bombing of Dresden and the extermination of the Jews in the second world war were first made popular through the work of the holocaust denier David Irving.  Whilst Jörg Friedrich, who always operates within German law, where holocaust denial as carried out by Irving would be illegal, has not directly made that comparison. He has described the death of civilians killed by carbon monoxide poisoning in their cellars as "gassing", the attacks in general as a "massacre" and claimed that the attacks of 1945 had little or no military value.
Irving was the first person to claim a death toll of over 100,000 for the bombing of Dresden, which even he was later forced to withdraw.The Dresden Raids letter to the Editor from The Times 7 July 1966 a correction to "The Destruction of Dresden" by David Irving  London: William Kimber, 1963.  In this letter Irving, who had previously used figures as high as 250,000 admitted the confirmed casualty figures were actually 18,375, expected to rise to 25,000 including when those not registered in the city were taken into account. Despite the admission of his mistake contained in the letter, he has still used figures as high as 100,000 in articles and books on his own website fpp.org, some written as late as 2004.  Jörg Friedrich has never made such extreme claims. His claim of 40,000 is around the current best estimates of 25,000 to 35,000 (see Bombing of Dresden).Dresden im Luftkrieg: Vorgeschichte-Zerstörung-Folgen by Götz Bergander.The Bombing of Dresden in 1945: Falsification of statistics, by Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, a detailed critique of problems with David Irving's book. 
See the comments by others above, "smear campaign". All the text is trying to imply evil on behalf of Friedrich - "always operating within German law", "has not directly made that comparison" - implies that he has an agenda that reaching beyond, and the juxtaposition with Irving tells us where... It is telling that texts like these can stay on Wikipedia for so long. -- Zz (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part III 

message: The article stated: now considered by some critics as a revisionist historian, a label which he has acknowledged. This claim is sourced. However, it appears in only one newspaper without quoting Friedrich on it. That is hardly sufficient evidence in the case of a historian who has got as much coverage as Friedrich. For one, acknowledging something implies that he faced with the claim (in which form exactly?) and Friedrich accepting it. For another, it is strange to have single souced claim of that kind in the lead of the article. -- Zz (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self acknowledged revisionist historian? 

message: The article wrote: Such a position is impossible to justify and ignores the previous examples of the Luftwaffe's targeting of civilians. The Germans had bombed civilians during the Spanish Civil War, notably at Guernica. During the Second World War they had deliberately targeted columns of French refugees caught up in the civilian exodus from the battle zone. In the bombing of Rotterdam, no attempt was made to hit military targets. No source is given, and it is the opinion of the contributor. -- Zz (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Such a position... 

message: Jörg Friedrich is born 17. 8. 1944 Essen/Germany. He is German. Please look Wikepedia de  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fibe101 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jörg Friedrich 

message: Yes, there were many unspeakable atrocities committed by Germans during their wars. You should see: fighting such an enemy doesn't mean to acquire his methods but to avoid any of those seemingly most despicable acts brought to oneself. Beating an unjust and unfair enemy with just and fair methods and keeping the moral high-ground should be essential in the process of a righteous war. - But of course that's not what war is about.
To your article: Jörg Friedrich claims that analyzing the firestorm in London led to a method to induce such firestorms taking into account the ratio of incendiary and explosive bombs as well as the housing situation on the ground. Areas to create a firestorm had to be tightly inhabited with narrow streets with high (a few storeys) and flammable buildings (to bundle the airflow and create a horizontal chimney-effect). So you start bombing the middle of the target area to create a larger fire which is drawing in its surrounding air. Further bomb the outskirts of the area and those smaller fires will spread guided by the airflow created by the fire in the center. 
This leads to several conclusions: it works only on certain urban areas, it didn't work on Berlin because there was too much space between the buildings and its not working on industrial areas with modern buildings and even wider space.
The effect on people taking shelter in their cellars could be lack of oxygen, excess of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide or to be cooked like in an airflow oven.
In a sort-of documentary (it was a "themed evening") Jörg Friedrich stated, what he was most puzzled about was that there were mostly older people, children and wounded - all the others would have been in the trenches were they thought they could make a difference (or fled to the countryside of course). And they even presented a few whiny RAF pilots stating "we had our orders" and "when we were done we had time to look at the ground and thought about the people" - oh man grow some testicles.
So, yes, the main target of the firestorms had to be the life and housing of civilians. And yes, a wee bit smiting can be oh so comforting for ones soul. And of course those old and young were as responsible for enabling Hitler to do what he did and had daughters who bred sons who raped and bombed and killed and robbed. Oh wait... the young couldn't - oh so what... it hit one of us so it should be a thousand off the others if there could only be found a solution for all of them because the enemy hides everywhere...
Sorry for that rant. Feel free to delete it (unnecessarily said).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.43.140.170 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am so sorry ... 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jörg Friedrich (author). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20050524113718/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Jörg Friedrich (author). 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/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050108232950/http://quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=592 to http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=592
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050108232950/http://quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=592 to http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=592
*Added  tag to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
*Added  tag to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070303mar07,1,20636.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310082103/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw159.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw159.htm
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) 08:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified