Talk:Joachim Hoffmann

message: Seit Monaten wird die Veröffentlichung »Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-  -1945« des ehemaligen wissenschaftlichen Direktors des  Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes (MGFA) Joachim Hoffmann in der  Öffentlichkeit diskutiert. Hoffmann vertritt dort die sog.  Präventivkriegsthese. Demnach sei Hitler mit dem »Unternehmen  Barbarossa« 1941 einem Angriff durch die Sowjetunion nur kurz  zuvorgekommen. Zudem äußert sich Hoffmann auch zum »Auschwitzproblem«  und zur »Gasangelegenheit«, für die er »letztlich keine Beweise habe  finden können. Bei der Zahl von sechs Millionen ermordeter Juden  handele es sich ,um eine Zahl der Sowjetpropaganda'« 
(DIE TAGESZEITUNG  vom 27. Dezember 1995).
For months the publication of "Stalins war of extermination 1941 - -1945 "by former  scientific director of the Military-historical office for research (MGFA) Joachim Hoffmann has been publicly debated. Hoffmann represents the so-called Preventive war thesis. Therefore, Hitler with the "operation Barbarossa" 1941 only briefly forestalled an attack by the Soviet Union . Also  Hoffmann is outspoken about the "Auschwitz problem" and  the "matter of the gas", for which he could find in the long run no proof. On the number of six million murdered Jews he attributes it to a number of Soviet propaganda'" 
(the DAILY PAPER from 27 December 1995). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had actually read Hoffmann's book, instead of some (a few) slanderous book reviews, you'd know that he disputed the 6 million victims in Auschwitz only, not the fact that at least 6 million Jews were murdered (taken together all the death camps). And Hoffmann was merely pointing at other authors' findings (recent dispute), since he was himself no big specialist in the 'statistics' of Auschwitz. Constanz - Talk 10:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "was completely destroyed by an IP user. even UNCAPITALISED letters etc. a schoolboy having fun??" Calling me names.  ie "schoolboy" I'm afraid is  giving away the level of your thought process on this issue. Name calling is not a rational for  removing the article. You have nothing to add about his work. Only to claim that anyone who does not subscribe to his view is slandering him. Feel free to make that claim in the article. However what you are removing are his own words, which I'm afraid are a bit damaging. Feel free to make the claim that the quotes I provided are Hoffmann slandering himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.68.203 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course all those "slanderous book reviews" do seem to form some kind of consensus independent of whatever view I might form by "actually" reading "Hoffmann's book". I doubt you would be happy with my conclusions. Your personal theories about Hoffmann or the "slanderous book reviews" he suffers from can be posted on your own web site, if you are so adamant. Or maybe you can write your own book about him, and cite it here, just as Hoffmann did in court.68.60.68.203 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally I am not going to read Hoffmann's book as long as doing so would mean that I would be contributing funds of one of the long list of Neo-Nazi or Holocaust "Revision" publishers who print his work. It is not nessesary when his quotes are available in other media.68.60.68.203 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aniti-communism Hoffmann style 

message: "please compare german wikipedia, where it was finally found out (!?) that hoffmann should not be called hol. denier"
NPOV 
I am incredulous that someone would actually NPOV the article, which they had reduced to Hoffmann's own testimony about what he considered most  relevant  to this question in his own work at a trial . Of course you realized your mistake and were forced to remove everything and resort to name-calling. 68.60.68.203 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange that you should do this instead of ADDING your facts from German wiki "where it was finally found out (!?) that hoffmann should not be called hol. denier" 68.60.68.203 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also I was not aware that the german wikipedia existed for the purpose of deciding moral or legal issues. ie whether hoffmann should be called a holocaust denier or guilty of holocaust denial. I personally don't care about particular labels. Holocaust denial is not a crime for most readers of the english wikipedia, it does not have the legal significance that it does in Gemany. However it seems there are plenty of writers in Germany who do think that he should be called exactly that, and of course there was the question of the Green Party inquiry at the Bundestag which I am sure you are aware of. Those people think he should have been charged with a crime. But he is dead now, and it is not a legal question. 68.60.68.203 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ABC's of Auschwitzleugner H is for Hoffmann  

message: Are "Revisionists" Holocaust-deniers? from http://www.nizkor.org/features/revision-or-denial/
For the purposes of this discussion, I am using a fairly generic definition of the word Holocaust, which is
the Number 
the murder of six million Jews
the Plan
as a central act of state by the Nazis during the Second World War,
the Method    	
many in gas chambers.
So, someone who denied these things would be a Holocaust-denier, right?
Denial   Revisionists DO say
the Plan 	
that there was no German program to exterminate Europe's Jews,
the Method      
that numerous claims of mass killings in "gas chambers" are false,
the Number 	
and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration.
68.60.68.203 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We deny the holocaust and we deny that we deny it 

message: or 
What does Hoffman say about the Holocaust
the Plan  
Jews were very much involved in murderous assignments during the war...responsible for the deaths of millions...the criminal actions of individual Jews should no more reflect on the Jewish people as a whole than the criminal actions of individual Nazis on the German people.
ie no plan  just individual Nazis just like the murderous  individual Jews responsible for the deaths of millions (although he also says that there was a plan  by  Ehrenburg  whose unbridled frenzies of hatred culminated in his call to "put an end to Germany" "to reduce the population of Germany", towards which end the only thing left to decide was whether it would be better "to kill the Germans with axes or with clubs".
the Method
Hoffmann is outspoken about the "Auschwitz problem" and the "matter of the gas", for which he could find in the long run no proof. 
(DIE TAGESZEITUNG vom 27. Dezember 1995). 
But they are "slanderers" so  don't take their word for it, try the official government response to certain questions posed in the Bundestag:
"Es ist unverkennbar, daß die Präventivkriegsthese von Joachim Hoffmann  sowie seine Ausführungen über das sogenannte Auschwitz-Problem und über  die sogenannte Gasangelegenheit in der maßgeblichen wissenschaftlichen  Literatur, soweit sich dies feststellen läßt, einhellig auf Ablehnung  gestoßen sind... " 
It is unmistakable that the preventive war thesis of Joachim Hoffmann as well as its remarks over the so-called Auschwitz problem and over the so-called affair of gas in the relevant scientific Literature, as far as this can be determined, are unanimously rejected... 
(Federal response to question 3a) 
But then "Hoffmann was merely pointing at other authors' findings (recent dispute), since he was himself no big specialist in the 'statistics' of Auschwitz. Constanz - Talk 10:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anatomy of the Common Toad

message: Deniers have this habit of pointing out all the good parts in Hoffmann, thus slandering him with his own words. 
hxxp://www.nizkor.vex.net/ftp.cgi/people/k/ftp.py?people/k//koch.manfred/1996/koch.1196.de
Der Sowjetische Ankläger, Oberjustizrat Smirnov, hatte vor dem Internationalen
Militärgerichtshof am 19. Februar 1946 des langen und breiten und auf der
Basis fabrizierten Materials (USSR-196, USSR-197, USSR-393) die Anklage
vorgetragen, die Deutschen hätten aus den Leichen ermordeter Juden fabrikmäßig
Seife hergestellt.
		Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945
		Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, München 1995, Seite 162 68.60.68.203 02:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the old soft soap 

message: Eigentlich wäre damit schon genug gesagt, aber leider ist damit der Traurigkeit noch kein Ende gesetzt. Denn als ich zusammen mit meinem Partner Dr. Robert H. Countess anfing, revisionistische Literatur in englischer Sprache zu publizieren, ergab sich noch eine ganz andere Kategorie von Problemen mit dem IHR, die kein anderer mit dem Institute haben konnte, da es zur Zeit außer dem von Herrn Dr. Countess und mir geführten Verlag Theses & Dissertations Press keinen anderen Verlag gibt, der englischsprachige revisionistische Literatur verlegt. ....
...Im ersten Fall geht es um den deutschen Sammelband Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, der Mitte 2000 auf Englisch unter dem Titel Dissecting the Holocaust bei Theses & Dissertations Press erschien.[38] In all den Jahren seit der Veröffentlichung der deutschen Ausgabe Ende 1994 kam Herr Weber offenbar nie auf den Gedanken, den deutschen Verleger des Buches um Übersetzungsrechte zu bitten....
....Das gleiche Spiel wiederholte sich im Jahr 2000, als Dr. Countess und ich an der Veröffentlichung einer englischen Ausgabe des Buches Stalins Vernichtungskrieg von Joachim Hoffmann arbeiteten (in englisch: Stalin's War of Extermination).[39] Dieses Buch erschien erstmalig in deutscher Sprache anno 1995 und erweckte in Deutschland rege Aufmerksamkeit. Natürlich muß Mark Weber dieses Buch seither gekannt haben, aber erst nachdem sich Dr. Countess im Jahr 2000 um die englischen Rechte kümmerte, zeigte Mark Weber ein Interesse an dem Projekt. Wo war Webers Interesse bloß in den Jahren 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999?  .......
....Soweit mir bekannt ist, hat sich Mark Weber noch nicht einmal um eine Kontaktaufnahme zu den betroffenen Verlegern und Autoren bemüht...
....Sobald ich meine englischsprachigen revisionistischen Bücher veröffentlicht hatte, zeigte sich ein neues, unerfreuliches Verhaltensmuster der führenden Leute des IHR, das mich noch mehr aufbrachte. Während der 13. IHR-Konferenz im Juni 2000 sprach ich mit Greg Raven, der für den Erwerb von Büchern zum Wiederverkauf zuständig war, über die Möglichkeit, ob das IHR mein Buch Dissecting the Holocaust, das im August 2000 vom Drucker ausgeliefert werden sollte, zum Verkauf an seine Kunden anbieten könnte. Er teilte mir mit, er sei willens, dieses Buch in sein Angebot aufzunehmen, vorausgesetzt, ich würde ihm einen Rabatt von 80% zugestehen....dann mag man verstehen, daß ich über eine solch empörende Aussage ziemlich erregt war....I felt this demand therefore rather as a declaration of war against me as a unwillkommenen revisionistic publishing house competitor...
SLANDER!
...Aber damit war die Geschichte noch nicht zu Ende. Als ich Anfang 2001 die beiden revisionistischen Werke The Giant With Feet of Clay von Jürgen Graf (Übersetzung des Buches Riese auf tönernen Füßen) und Stalin's War of Extermination veröffentlicht hatte, teilte mir G. Raven mit, er könne die Bücher anderer Verleger nicht ins Programm aufnehmen, weil das IHR ansonsten seinen Status als gemeinnützige Organisation gefährde....
........Unsere Persönlichkeiten sind einfach ganz und gar unvereinbar.    # Seit 1991, als ich mit der Vorbereitung der revisionistischen Anthologie Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (später unter dem Titel Dissecting the Holocaust auf Englisch erschienen) begann, habe ich bei jedem Projekt, bei dem ich beteiligt war, eine führende Rolle gespielt.......BLAH BLAH BLAH etc
----
Nachrufe    Dr. Joachim Hoffmann    Der Historiker Dr. phil. Joachim Hoffmann, am 1.12.1930 in Königsberg/Pr. geboren, starb am 8. Februar 2002 an den Folgen eines Herzversagens....
...Sein mit Abstand bedeutendstes wissenschaftliches Werk Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945, 1995 erstmalig erschienen, brachte ihm sowohl wissenschaftlichen Ruhm als auch endlose Angriffe seitens ideologischer Fanatiker vom Schlage eines Hannes Heer und Philipp Reemtsma, die eine Historisierung und Kontextualisierung des deutschen Angriffs auf die Sowjetunion und des sich daraus ergebenden beiderseitigen Vernichtungskrieges nicht ertragen bzw. hinnehmen können. Die Versuche, ihn mit legalen Mitteln mundtot zu machen, schlugen jedoch fehl (vgl. VffG 4/99, S. 455-458)....
Nicht nur aufgrund seines hervorragenden Buches muß Dr. Hoffmann als der mutigste Historiker Deutschlands bezeichnet werden, sondern auch deshalb, weil er sich nicht scheute, vor Gericht als sachverständiger Zeuge zu Gunsten dissidenter Historiker auszusagen. In einem Gutachten zu Gunsten des revisionistischen Sammelbandes Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte und dessen Herausgebers Germar Rudolf alias Ernst Gauss bestätigte er die Wissenschaftlichkeit des Werkes und setzte sich dafür ein, daß dem Herausgeber, den Autoren und dem Verleger der menschenrechtliche Schutz von Meinungsfreiheit und Freiheit der Wissenschaft gewährt werden müsse.    Aufgrund dieser gutachterlichen Tätigkeit kam Dr. Hoffmann 1997/98 erneut unter Beschuß, nachdem der Text des Gutachtens in der vorliegenden Zeitschrift veröffentlicht worden war (vgl. VffG 3/97, S. 205ff.).    Dr. Hoffmann ging jedoch seinen Weg unerschrocken und aufrecht weiter, als er seit Ende 2000 intensiv mit Germar Rudolf als Herausgeber an der Veröffentlichung einer englischen Fassung seines Buches zusammenarbeitete, die schließlich am 22. Juni 2001, 60 Jahre nach Beginn des Rußlandfeldzuges, in den USA im Verlag Theses & Dissertations Press erschien. Wenn bestimmte Kreise in Deutschland wüßten, daß Herr Germar Rudolf nun Verleger bei Theses & Dissertations Press ist, so würden diese sich gewaltig ärgern, schrieb Dr. Hoffmann süffisant in einem persönlichen Schreiben vom 21.7.2001.    Herr Dr. Hoffmann war voll des Lobes und Dankes angesichts der hochwertigen Qualität, mit der sein Buch in den USA erschien. Es war mir eine Ehre, dem mutigsten Historiker Nachkriegsdeutschlands diesen Dienst erweisen und mich auf diese Weise bei ihm bedanken zu dürfen!    Germar Rudolf68.60.68.203 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs and Fleas 

message: It's worth noting, for all the references to the German version of the page, that German Wikipedia has Hoffmann in Kategorie:Geschichtsrevisionismus.  I've added the English analogue to this page. -- TedFrank 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks 68.60.68.203 09:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust denial 

message: I've tried to delete all of the Hoffmann term excpets the small description since the last entry was just an outline of a Holocaust denial ideaology made to convince its viewers. The whole term was biased and one sided. Start Nazipedia or something and stop your lie spread. I never understood those people, are they proud or dissapointed that Hitler didn't kill 6 million as they claim.
:sorry you feel that way - you make for strange bedfellows w/ my previous censor- you prefer that Hoffman stays covered, the other that he is dressed up in a respectable suit 68.60.68.203 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my role as Nazipedian liar I feel I should  point out (not to brag or anything), that Hitler also killed his dog and his wife - and that you have  slighted him by at least 25 million dead. Of course lies can be disproved, can't they, so I am sure you will do that with your powerful arguments. 68.60.68.203 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazipedia

message: I've noticed Constanz has stopped editing the page. Assuming Constanz is no longer reading this, and if he is then he should feel free to answer, I'll ask 68.60.68.203: The edit war seem to have stopped. What happened? Did Constanz abandon the article, did you work out your differences, what? --Scorpios 04:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Constanz abandoned Wikipedia 68.60.68.203 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War

message: The article has been marked for cleanup. There is a lot of overlap to articles on Holocaust denial. And when I read labels like the Auschwitz numbers gambit, I was not initially sure if the article was not revisionist by itself. Fortunately, it is not revisionist.
In order to clean up the article, I propose the following: link in relevant parts about holocaust denial and how it is refuted. Mention that Hoffmann was deliberately vague and misleading about the holocaust and that he spoke in support of holocaust deniers. However, the main thrust of Hoffmann was to imply that the German invasion of the Soviet Union was a preventive measure. His attempt at apologetics and falsifying history needs to be covered in more detail. His books are used as a kind of entry drug for the extreme right. -- Zz 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Auschwitz numbers gambit' is a standard term in American anti-denial scholarship -yes there is overlap because it is Hoffmans claim to fame -a so called legitimate historian (the first, a la Rudolf the first so called legitimate "scientist" denier who also just happens to be the guy he testifies for) who lends his "expertise" to defend holocaust deniers in court. "His attempt at apologetics and falsifying history needs to be covered in more detail. His books are used as a kind of entry drug for the extreme right"  Have at it.  Plenty of detail has already been provided71.227.123.187 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The obvious problem seems to be, that the author of this article was unable to just describe the controversy. Instead he took part in it. In this case against Hoffmann. This can not be called a serious work, but let's see what we can do. --Memnon335bc 10:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP that wrote the page had collected almost everything that could somehow discredit Hoffmann. For example, nonsense claims that Hoffmann declared Operation Barbarossa a defensive war (complete lie!) and all this and that about Jürgen Graf and David Irving etc which have no connection at all to Hoffmann. It's a pity that such trolls like that anon are allowed to edit Wikipedia. 193.40.5.245 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The task off a serious article should be to sum a controvery up. Nothing more. It is not for the author to argue against any side. He should only outline, who said what. That's all. I am rather sure, that it is still possible to clean the text up in this sense. --Memnon335bc 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP that wrote the page had collected almost everything that could somehow discredit Hoffmann. For example, nonsense claims that Hoffmann declared Operation Barbarossa a defensive war (complete lie!) perhaps the estonian sock puppet can explain this??
*Hitler (ist) nur knapp einem mit Hochdruck vorbereiteten Angriff Stalins zuvorgekommen. Der 22.Juni 1941 war so ziemlich der letzte *Termin, um überhaupt noch einen ‚Präventivkrieg’ führen zu können.
*(Hitler only narrowly anticipated an attack that Stalin was preparing with high pressure. 22 June 1941 was about the last date on *which such a 'preventive war' could still be waged at all. ) Hoffmann "Stalin's War of Extermination"71.227.123.187 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "correct all my mistakes" your mistake is thinking you can remove the article like Constanz did.71.227.123.187 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  [Holocaust denial|Holocaust deniers]] rely on several common gambits, or ploys, which scholars are familiar with, when accounting for the number killed at Auschwitz to distract from the known facts. These are know as Auschwitz Numbers gambits.-- who says that? the anon, who wrote this article??-- How about reading the  4 citations provided.  So the number is up for debate eh?? its disputed POV. Good luck on this page 71.227.123.187 06:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:    False statements and there was a lot of false things there- such as???? LIKE DUDE, CAN YOU NAME ONE before removing the article?  like Constanz you make claims -but do not back them up, only remove what was written. I believe you called me a vandal to justify your actions in the comments?  All anyone has to do is look at the history and know who is flying the false flag and who is editing in good faith. Meanwhile I am going to enjoy my summer. 71.227.123.187 23:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am not going to read Hoffmann's book" (01:06, 4 March 2007) A nice quote. Why? Because it is exactly the reason, why any "discussion" with you about Hoffmann's works and views is pointless through you have obviously not read them. As soon as you have read it, we can discuss as long as you want, but not earlier. --Memnon335bc 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The entire section is sourced only to primary sources, i.e. books by Hoffman himself, and instead of citing him directly, this is actually an editorial summary. Do we have any secondary sources about it? If not, I am afraid this section is WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a few refs in another section flatly saying that he has been criticized. But for what, exactly? Any criticism must be very specific and supported by secondary RS. Welcome to expand and properly source this and other sections if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be working on this page with what was on here.Thelostone41 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think restoring the 14 year old version was not a good idea. Remember that the current version reflects consensus and work by a lot of contributors. By reverting you remove all their good faith work. Do you know German to verify all these references? Some contributors who edited here do know German, and I am sure they made their changes for a good reason. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there was a big fight on this page then people stopped working on it trying to see what I can do I know some German from my mom.Thelostone41 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So far you just reverted my edits, and what you do  is concerning. Yes, someone named Wigbert Grabert could be an extremist, whoever, but what these sources say about the subject of this page, i.e. Joachim Hoffmann? They must name him directly. And no, WP:PRIMARY (like court rulings about Wigbert Grabert) are not good. Yes, the Hoffmann appeared on the trial as an expert-witness. OK. But did any secondary RS described his testimony as anything problematic? You need such RS, and I do not see them at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

text:  - Which sources/RS say that he "defended a Holocaust denier" in a bad sense (meaning he supported the denier)? Simply being an expert witness in a court does not mean anything. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This one Joachim Hoffmann: Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte: Gutachterliche Stellungnahme. In: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung Jg. 1 (1997) Nr. 3, S. 205-207.Thelostone41 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, this is (translation): Joachim Hoffmann: Basics of contemporary history: Expert opinion. In: Vierteljahreshefte für free historical research vol. 1 (1997) No. 3, pp. 205-207 No, this is a primary source by the subject. You need a strong (better scholarly) secondary RS which tells something about the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added H ref it is sponsored by the German archives.Thelostone41 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What you refer to  is a website posting/blog post by an anonymous person. Why do you think this qualifies as an RS on Holocaust subjects? Yes, author of the posting disagree with the evaluation of a book (by Germar Rudolf) by Hoffman. So what? How this shows that Hoffman belongs to (or connected to) "far-right"? My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same year the the right-wing press Herbig Verlag published his book, in which he said in Auschwitz a number of only 74,000 victims can be considered certain https://www.h-ref.de/literatur/h/hoffmann-joachim/gutachten.php..This site is recognized also in real life by German schools as a reliable source on the Holocaust http://lernen-aus-der-geschichte.de/Lernen-und-Lehren/content/8978/2010-11-08-Webportal-Holocaust-Referenz.Thelostone41 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this does not look like an RS. (a) Can you even say who was author of this posting? I do not see it. (b) This is just a web site called (translation) "website Holocaust Reference". OK, but do you know any publications (RS) about it which claim there is any fact checking process out there? If you still think this is an RS, please ask at WP:RSNB. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

text: * - Note that even the questionable source you cited does not call him a "Holocaust denier". But once again, if there are scholarly RS making such claim, I totally agree to include it. I just do not see such RS.My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He said in Auschwitz a number of only 74,000 victims can be considered certain that's a  Holocaust denier talking point? Just like we say on Grover Furrs page he is a  Soviet war crimes denier who holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This 74,000 number comes on the page from here, which is a self-published source of questionable authorship. The rest is your personal conclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust sub-section

message: @Thelostone41, you just restored this section that was unsourced for 10 years. Please either remove this section or provide good secondary sources to support these contentious claims. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler war section

message: @Thelostone41. Page tells he "has been criticised by historians for his uncritical attitude to the Nazi regime, and its war in the Soviet Union". This is not good. What exactly he said about the Nazi regime was criticized and why? Can we take it from the cited sources? And in any event, looking at the editing on this page and discussion, these sources must be checked/verified. Do you have any of them available and can you develop/elaborate this content? Vague accusations are never good and frequently misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For is book and I have done research on Mr.Hoffmann and I have checked/verified the sources that I did not add. Right now the opening is marching with the sources.Thelostone41 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, he was criticized for what exactly? What "uncritical attitude" means? My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

text: For is views on Auschwitz and for downplaying the Nazi Race policy's for operation Barbarossa.Thelostone41 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "for downplaying the Nazi Race policy's for operation Barbarossa". Meaning that he supported Racial policy of Nazi Germany? Well, that would definitely qualify him as a Nazi. But could you please cite exactly and in some detail what RS tell about it, with pages, quotations, etc.? So far you produced only one self-published source that does NOT make such claim. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies