Estimated Number of Jews Killed in The Final Solution Not sure of use of the word "mere", perhaps in comparison to other Dutch civ deaths? Let's read the full paragraph... my bold In war time people get killed. Holland suffered the most, by far, from Allied doing. Besides the ill fate of a mere 100,000 Jews, the largest losses came from the masses of failed Allied raids on transportation, military bases, air raid failures and of course the liberation. Yet, the Allies are heroes in our country, because they gave their lives to liberate another country. And although the collateral damage and kills were far beyond necessity, the Allies are gladly forgiven for their massive strafes of trains and other means of transportation. That is how we deal with matters. To me there is a huge difference between deliberate crimes like Paradis, Wormhoudt and comparable events and the collateral damages that are sort of evident when one country invades the other. Even the Lex Belli accepts the collateral damages as inevitable.
QUOTE Gooseman: Besides the ill fate of a mere 100,000 Jews Ron- I can't believe I read this either. Gooseman- I don't like the above statement at all-in fact it offends me. This thread seems to be going completely off topic. Lesley
No, they are valid, of course. But every historian learns that specific problems have to be dealt with when working with contemporary witnesses and their reports (in fact, any kind of source comes with specific problems). The main issues are - subjectivity: You see things from your point of view which will most certainly differ a bit (or a lot) from what others made of the same event. - temporal distance to the event: Over time you think about things differently, or forget about them, or they get changed by later experiences - motivation: There's the possibility that the speaker tells what the audience wants to hear rather than tell what really happened, or that they want to make a better (or just different) impression of themselves. Like any other source, first hand accounts have to be crosschecked with other documents and taken as what they are, i.e. subjective perspective of things. I appreciate the fact that sometimes when you're experiencing things, that can be subjective.
I'm not sure Pte Harbour is a Pte. I'm still reading the 2 Warwicks Missing Men file and I think he is mentioned by another as a Gunner Pte Harbour was 4th Cheshires, 13 platoon having recently been transferred from 15 Platoon. 13 Platoon was in the A and D coy warwicks area on the South side, where the majority of men who subsequently ended up in the Barn. Known to my father, nicked-named Ships, he was a reservist from the Lincoln regiment - like all the other reservist he had been in a machine gun company (all excellent soldiers and more should have been made of their skills). However, he was overweight and middle aged, he should not have been on any battlefield in my father's opinion but still a good bloke and hard drinker.
Gooseman To return to your previous statement: Veterans are usually the worst of sources when it comes to unbiased reconstruction of things. They are much overrated as a source. I am saying that after many years study and incorporating the thoughts of many fellow researchers. Veterans are essential to fill in the tiny details, sketch certain emo-elements, but as it comes to battle-reconstruction their accounts can be mighty dangerous and inaccurate. By a fortuitous coincidence, only today we welcomed to the forum another veteran, namely Joe Brown. Read his opening introduction: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/veteran-accounts/44179-veteran-infantry-signallers.html After you have seen his opening introduction, go to his first class record of events at Second World War Memoirs of JOE BROWN study it, and then tell us if you still abide by your earlier remarks Ron
I will try to address this piece by piece and stick to the 1940 context. I mentioned several witnesses and several incidents in my post. First, Private Bill Cheall of 6th Green Howards was angered by the sight of German aircraft attacking marked hospital ships at Dunkirk. I originally got this from an online link to Cheall's unpublished that I have preserved somewhere in my notes. Cheall's memoirs have since been published. I do not think Cheall made this up, because similar cases (perhaps the very one Cheall witnessed) are cited by Walter Lord in The Miracle of Dunkirk (Penguin 1984, 241-242), by David Divine in The Nine Days of Dunkirk (Ballantine, 1959, 62, 65) and in Julian Thompson's Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory (Pan 2008, 268). Divine was at Dunkirk himself and wrote in 1959, fairly close to the event. Lord was an experienced oral historian, and while 1982 (first pub date) wasn't 1940 or 1959 it isn't 2012 either. Julian Thompson is a Major General who knows the Imperial War Museum collection backwards and forwards and uses it in his books. As for Bill Cheall, his published memoirs have received excellent reviews. As it happens, Bill's son Paul is a member of this forum, so if you doubt the senior Cheall's veracity I suggest you contact Paul. I mentioned 'a little gem' by Rommel himself. In brief, when a captured French colonel was ordered to get into a German tank and refused to move Rommel and Colonel Rothenberg of 7th Panzer Div had the Frenchman shot. This can be found in Simon Sebag-Montefiore's Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man (Harvard, 2008, 128). The story comes directly from Rommel himself. (Liddell-Hart, The Rommel Papers, 1953, 22.) Stanley Hollis of 6th Green Howards said that he saw hundreds of dead French civilians in Lille when he was separated from his unit. In Hollis' opinion, these people had been deliberately shot by the Germans. From that point on, Hollis cut notches in his weapon and took the war with deadly earnestness. Hollis' story comes from Cornelius' Ryan's The Longest Day (Popular Library, 1959, 66-67). Ryan, too, was an experienced oral historian who had no trouble at all with being fair to the Germans; he took testimony for his books from scores of Germans, both military and civilian. Ryan was also writing fairly close to the event; Hollis wasn't old, and he was presumably lucid. I don't know that much about Hollis or whether he was considered a truthful man. I do know that he was a fine soldier. His CO in 1944, the capable and intelligent Robin Hastings, thought very highly of him. I also referred to Colonel J.E.S. Percy's opinion of what the German aircraft did to the refugees. A quotation from Percy (then CO 9th DLI) to this effect is on page 140 of Harry Moses' book, The Gateshead Gurkhas. Percy was a good CO, though a bit of a worrier. He reports that an ME109 created 'a shambles' of dead refugees near the 9th DLI position on Vimy Ridge, 'which fortunately I did not see.' This implies that he was told of the massacre by his subordinates, though I cannot immediately see why they would lie to him about such a thing. Many people on this forum have studied the DLI in WWII, so perhaps more information on the incident is available here. Nor is Percy's the only account of German air attack on refugees in 1940; check the personal record of Major Leonard Gibson (then brigade major of 50th Div RA), found in the Imperial War Museum. Bear in mind that the works I've cited were written for the most part by experienced historians who could weigh evidence (Lord, Ryan, Thompson, Moses, Sebag-Montefiore). The personal testimonies they based their findings on were mostly created close to the event. At least one of these personal recollections (Cheall's) is pretty well confirmed by others and official accounts. You say you are interested in truth-finding, but I think you would have a difficult time demonstrating that all the people I've mentioned here were lying or exaggerating.
So what have we here? My suspicions at first -another who derives satisfaction out of provocation. Looking at some of his comments which need not be repeated, I think we have another 'follower'. I fear we will be knocking on a firmly closed door. The point is usually made with a thin veil of camouflage soon exposed as the argument leads them to make statements that show allegiance.
Wills It seems as if I have to agree with you. At my age, I should be able to spot these trolls as and when they appear on site but unfortunately my bile soon rises whenever accusations are made of, at best, poor memory and at worse, downright dishonesty, by our diminishing band of veterans. Ron
The words of my company commander as we stood in Belsen during a break in a NATO exercise, 'if you are ever asked why you soldier -here is the answer'.
Dr Henry Dicks was the psychiatrist, who in May 1941 was given the task of interviewing Hess.Dicks kept a record of their covert interview sessions and was able to gain a considerable insight to the character and personality traits of the Deputy Fuhrer. Dick's interview technique is still used as a guide to engaging with enemies. I remember the technique being reported many years ago as the interviewer lying down beside the prisoner with a gently softly approach to access the mental state and motivation of the prisoner.Seems to be from the pioneering work of Dicks. Regarding Gooseman's contribution.As soon as I saw his first submission with the use of "mere" and the obvious attempt to playdown German excesses,I realised that here was a man who was obviously disappointed that Hitler's vision of a Greater German Reich had failed. He would appear to be attempting to add the same dimensions to the history of that era as David Irving.
Gooseman I can't believe I read that !!!!! Would you care to elaborate ? Ron Perhaps you should start reading with an open mind, my friend. Perhaps then too you start understanding. In stead of browsing for a 'faux pas' and reading what is not said ...
I really can not believe that you're writing such utter drivel and insulting stuff. I have been to Holland, dealt with Dutch people who suffered in the war at the hands of the invading forces in the course of my research relating to my uncle's plane which it is thought crashed over Holland, I have seen at first hand how grateful the average Dutch person was/is about the Allied bombing etc. My uncle and his crew gave their lives (70th anniversary yesterday actually) to help rid your country of the Nazi occupation. By your comments you insult their sacrifice. Are you suggesting they should have let you all rot? What a pathetic reply. If you don't get it, don't bother. I am not going to keep replying to half-wits that only look for trouble.
Estimated Number of Jews Killed in The Final Solution Not sure of use of the word "mere", perhaps in comparison to other Dutch civ deaths? Let's read the full paragraph... my bold Thank you DBF, that is the only way that one grows appreciation and potential to deal with challenging topics. Reading things IN their context, rather than taking out one sentence and suggesting a 180 degree different angle ...
Gooseman Perhaps you should start reading with an open mind, my friend. Perhaps then too you start understanding. In stead of browsing for a 'faux pas' and reading what is not said ... No friend of yours...............
On the subject of not getting it, it would be unwise for me to take you on there, you have displayed enough to prove your expertise. Resorting to calling folk half wits, would you consider that enhances your argument or would that be the result of your open mind? Reading what is not said? I am sure you have a belief you just do not have the courage to say it. The people you attempt to belittle displayed a different sort of courage - and let me tell you they still do! Sure you will reply - it will be an exercise in time wasting - something else you excel at. Goodbye! I suspect calling Mr Goldstein -friend is a step too far!
No, they are valid, of course. But every historian learns that specific problems have to be dealt with when working with contemporary witnesses and their reports (in fact, any kind of source comes with specific problems). The main issues are - subjectivity: You see things from your point of view which will most certainly differ a bit (or a lot) from what others made of the same event. - temporal distance to the event: Over time you think about things differently, or forget about them, or they get changed by later experiences - motivation: There's the possibility that the speaker tells what the audience wants to hear rather than tell what really happened, or that they want to make a better (or just different) impression of themselves. Like any other source, first hand accounts have to be crosschecked with other documents and taken as what they are, i.e. subjective perspective of things. *edit* The quote about Jews refers to Jews from the Netherlands; according to Wikipedia 107'000 were deported from there (not sure but I think that's the total?), so Gooseman isn't very wrong with 100'000. PS: Sorry Andy for the offtopic-ness! Thanks for this explanation. Besides have or may have reason to alter the actual events in their reports or narratives. Not only time is their enemy but also compulsion or predetermined editting of the 'truth'. Another thing that veterans were infected by were the 'barracks virus'. After battle the participants that survived regrouped or got captured. The longer they stayed together, particularly in enprisonment, the more contaminated got their narratives and reports by 'hear tell' elements, often not even whilst they were aware of such a contamination. Veterans, particularly those with 'leading positions'such as NCO's and officers, could have every reason to add to their actual performance and choke on that of others. After battle reports are almost at all times editted by higher levels. Even the verbal reports long after the events are often infected by influences, like a certain story-line that has been intervened by higher command. As long as one feeds wrong intel down the chain of command in a serious way, the lower levels shall consume such des-information as the truth. In my long experience with study of thousands of aft-battle reports and numerous battle-seasond vets I have come across the most fantastic issues. The thing is that most amateurs forget that a veteran has only one pair of eyes that are usually down at grass-root level during battle. Much of his aft-battle report is from hear-tell and abstracted info afterwards. Rumour immediately infects first-hand veteran reports. Being critical on your source-validities is not a matter of lacking respect, like some of the responders here like to suggest, but merely a matter of thourough truth-finding by taking out as much bias and programming as possible.
Regarding Gooseman's contribution.As soon as I saw his first submission with the use of "mere" and the obvious attempt to playdown German excesses,I realised that here was a man who was obviously disappointed that Hitler's vision of a Greater German Reich had failed. He would appear to be attempting to add the same dimensions to the history of that era as David Irving. This is typical for many of the internet fora. The most agressive way of debate, simply Godwinning another debater. Harry apparently doesn't have a clue. I am not going to bother asking a mod to ban this kind of people or their insults. It is good that a response like that of Harry remains in the open.
You appear confused, Ron, Tom and other veterans have not written the history of the second world war, they have published personal experiences. Ron has proven that his contributions are not hearsay but taken from contemporary documents of his own authorship. Are you suggesting he embellished that - for what?
